Orsam Books

The Howlercast Part 1: Arrest and Flight

The below is a faithful transcript of the part of the Howlercast, broadcast on 6 June 2018, in which Michael Hawley (MH) is questioned by host Jonathan Menges (JM) on the subject of Tumblety's 1888 arrest and flight.  There are a number of howlers buried in amongst the chat.  See how many you can spot.  The answer will be given at the end. We begin at 40 minutes and 30 seconds into the recording...

JM: I want to jump into his arrest for suspicion of being the Whitechapel murderer and then his later gross indecency arrest. 

MH: Right.

JM: Your book kind of suggests that he might have been arrested for suspicion of being the Whitechapel murderer shortly after the double event.

MH: Yes.

JM: And that would make sense given that when he gave the interview later on, after he came back to New York, he said that he visited one of the sites in Whitechapel which would put him at the Berner Street scene…

MH: Okay.

JM:… I would think. Wearing the American slouch hat, right?

MH: Yes.

JM: So let me, and you can go through this but there’s a lot of, like, pretty interesting things that are going on at this time.  It seems that when he was first arrested for suspicion he gave a fake name to the police.  Isn’t that right?

MH: I would say that we can’t discount that because one report says that his correct name was in those letters.  So I could see him trying to say his fake name, for sure, especially when he used aliases as well.

JM: Right, and it also says in the press reports they established his identity by letters and then they also say the doctor’s identity was for a time concealed after his arrest but the police who took the liberty of hunting up his lodgings and ransacking his private effects discovered easily who he was.  So it seems that when he was nabbed, like, you would think around October 1st or so...

MH: Right.

JM: …he lied about his identity and it took the police a while to establish his identity.  Now whether he gave them the name Kumblety with a K or whether he gave the name Maurice Fitzsimmons or something like that, it’s not known. But what are your ideas on that…

MH: My ideas -

JM:… that when he was arrested for suspicion he became difficult with the police, even going to the fact as trying to conceal his identity.

MH: Any time he was arrested he shut off.  Remember, he had, the report was that he had his cash in one pocket and his jewellery in the other pocket, never to be mixed.  So that was kind of an interesting thing. And so he did that all the time just to show that he was kind of a higher status person.  But apparently that there were these letters. Now, were - did the letters - one of the two things that they tried to attempt to establish back then was that - who you are and what your residence is, so the fact that that report from the Boston Herald, London correspondent, that they went and ransacked his room, that, it does make sense. So, then, I don’t think that he would have used the word Kumblety with a K.  I believe that that right there was when E. Tracy Greaves was getting the information when they - he found that an American, a New Yorker, named Kumblety - notice that that was the correct name - I think the person, the information he received that from was not the arresting officer but someone in Scotland Yard that E. Tracy Greaves said on two separate occasions during 1888 that he had a Scotland Yard informant, that person just read the report and I’m convinced it was, he just mixed the letter K and T up.  So that’s the only time we ever see that Kumblety word.  And the Fitzimmons, the Maurice Fitzimmons, that’s interesting because that was the family, the family of, the descendants of, you know, Tumblety’s family, that live in Bath, that they made the comment about that.  I’m convinced that that right there was not what he used for the police, that was what the family members would use because Fitzimmons was part of the family, that name.  That was Margaret, his sister Margaret’s husband, Michael Fitzimmons, so he used the Fitzimmons name for that.  So whatever alias, was it Smith again Sullivan whoever he used? So, it didn’t work well because, of course, they eventually found out but you are right.  So even when you look at the Albert Chambers incident where that American who was bragging about wearing the American slouch hat just a day after the double event murder, that just screams of Tumblety and it kind of fits where once you have a person and have identified the name the first thing you would do is see do we have any record of this guy in our own record? And so you would go to cable headquarters, Scotland Yard, to see, this is where one of the things that I push is that that large dossier was not in Special Branch, that large dossier was it in C.I.D. so he had to have had a file in C.I.D. anyway because when he got in trouble with the young man in the 1870s that had nothing to do with Fenian stuff, so he had a file on him already and when you cable, you know, C.I.D.  you wouldn’t be going into the Special Branch files to find out, maybe you would, but in this case they found out that in there, and this is what Littlechild stated, that when he said a fact on record, that was not about Fenian stuff. Tumblety was notorious in the United States for being in trouble for sodomy, for indecent assault on young men and we know that in London that’s what he got in trouble for. So and also because his experience in Liverpool where one of his patients died, so that was part of the record that had nothing to do with any of the dynamiters or any of the Fenian situations, so he had this C.I.D. report so once they realized he was an American doctor, and that was suggested that Jack the Ripper just might be because of, like, the Americanisms in some of the letters and also that he was a doctor and that he had this bitter hatred of women and we don’t know exactly that fact on record what it said, did it say anything about hatred of women with prostitutes when we know that he did tell people that he hated prostitutes? But in this case that would have red flagged him, not that they would say well that’s Jack the Ripper I’m convinced 100% so let’s ignore everybody else, well that would now put him in a priority, so we don’t have anything on him, he’s denying anything so if we take him to court right now we would lose the court battle in a case so what they did was they released him immediately and so then as they were investigating him that’s when they would have tried to keep an eye on him as well if they were interested in him in this important case. And so in the November and December Central Criminal Court calendar record we see that he was entered into custody on November 7th so that means he had to have been arrested within 24 hours, and since they already - so basically they did a slight investigation on the gross indecency, they had those young men ready to go, so they arrested him probably that morning but it has to have been within 24 hours of that entering into custody that you have seen the magistrate to go in there and that remand hearing would be, you know, are we going to keep him in jail or allow bail? And clearly the next November 14th when they had the committal hearing, where the case would be even more solid, the magistrate allowed bail so here it is, so that he clearly would have, the same person would have allowed bail at the remand hearing, especially when we have three Scotland Yard officials stating that he was a suspect after the Kelly murder.  And if he was in jail during the Kelly murder, and if these police officers were convinced that Mary Kelly was a Ripper victim, somebody would have said that but nobody did. So even though we don’t have evidence that he was in jail or not, absence of evidence is not evidence for absence, so as in he was not in jail, so to me the evidence shows that he was clearly out of jail by, you know, around that November 7th.  But then November 14th that’s when that couple of days he posted bail on November 16th and even in the interview with Tumblety in January 1889 they asked “how long were you in jail?” and he basically said “a couple of days”.  So then he was released on that November 16th but his two - it was basically to be committed to Central Criminal Court and so November 19th was his grand jury hearing and November 19th is when they returned a true bill which means the jurors believed there was enough evidence to convict him for gross indecency which would be a few years in prison. So this right here was the time when Tumblety was convinced that he was going to jail. So by - on November 24th the La Bretagne left port at Havre on noon November 24th.  So there were basically three ways to get to the - Simon Wood talks about the ways to get to the Havre transiting.  One is from Liverpool, you can go directly to Havre, one is directly from London, through the Thames (?) you can get to Havre, or what the - some of the - during the Fenian situation like in 1883-1884 they would sneak off to Folkestone harbour, cross into Boulogne and then take a train to Havre. And then so in that case here we have Chief Inspector Littlechild didn’t say “Got to Havre”, he didn’t, Littlechild didn’t know about that, what he saw was, he reported that he was first seen in Boulogne and then shortly left thereafter it was basically he had knowledge of that’s the particular route that he took. And so, that was way after November 19th.  Now November 20th is that Tumblety’s lawyer, Bodkins (sic), was in front of the judge and so by, it was, November 10th they had assigned the court case, I’m sorry December 10th  was that, so if the Scotland Yard was merely interested in Tumblety because of the gross indecency case, he was legally bailed from November 16th till December 10th so there would be no reason for any Scotland Yard official to be seeking him out because he’s legally free on bail yet in the New York World, the December 2 New York World, a December 1 report, the origin source  was London, so it was E. Tracy Greaves, the New York World’s London correspondent, had a report that he was last seen in Havre and it’s taken for granted that he’s on his way to New York.  Well when that report came out that day he pulled in then he pulls up and here’s two New York City detectives, and one report has a Scotland Yard detective, waiting for him right at the La Bretagne and so that’s when Superintendent Byrnes, New York City Chief Detective, said that he had known that Tumblety was on his way to New York a week ago which was around the same time that the ship left on November 24th so Scotland Yard knew that Tumblety was on his way November 24th yet the public didn’t know until E Tracy Greaves wrote his report December 2nd.  There was no report at all about Tumblety sneaking out of the country yet Byrnes knew a week ago and he had two detectives waiting for him right at the, you know, when Tumblety disembarked so you could see Scotland Yard for some reason knew that he was in France and here’s Chief Inspector Littlechild saying that he was first seen in Boulogne and shortly left thereafter well it’s – so if, which is - December 10th is when Tumblety was a no show at Central Criminal Court so they issued a warrant December 10th for the gross indecency. Yet he’s already in New York. So for some reason Scotland Yard knew that Tumblety had made it to Boulogne.  Well if you think about it you take a train to Boulogne to – noon on the 24th is when the La Bretagne left port.  Tumblety had to have been in Boulogne on the 23rd to get there so he could make that ship.  So the 19th was the - the true bill was issued and then here it is the 23rd he’s in Boulogne.  So in that time you could see that Scotland Yard were trying to keep an eye on him as they were if he was indeed of interest of something and it could not have been just the gross indecency thing if they are following him around' and here is Chief Inspector Littlechild saying he was “amongst the suspects” of the Jack the Ripper case. So they had that interest in following him.  So the interesting thing, though, is if you look at Littlechild, his letter, anything pre-Boulogne is, he nails it exactly, not only does he nail the facts exactly, he gives two facts that nobody, no public knew outside of Scotland Yard until the 1990s.  One was that he was charged at Marlborough Street Station courts and the other was that when they talked about in the paper about the Maiden Tribute Act or the Babylon case, that right there, Littlechild knew that was because of these unnatural offences which was basically male-on-male homosexual activity and Littlechild talks about his contrary sexual instincts but there is nowhere in the paper that talks about that in this case and one of the reasons is because that Maiden Tribute of Modern Babylon was actually for maidens.  So in July 1885 remember the Pall Mall Gazette wrote those twelve articles on child prostitution that kind of pushed this and that if you look at the articles, about, over 90 times they talk about girls, well it’s a maiden thing, 24 times they say the word maiden, they don’t ever say boys, and only one time they make a comment about young men, then there was this Amendment Act of 1885 that added the gross indecency with Labouchere that did that, so if you looked at the reports it automatically assumes that he was charged for young girls or maidens.  And, as a matter of fact, Stewart Evans has a report that I put in the book, I don’t have it in front of me, but that in New York City these girls were afraid, they were afraid that Tumblety was the person that was threatening these girls and then, so you could see that in New York City they thought, they didn’t think it was young men that he was arrested for, it looked like it was girls although we know that once Tumblety made it to New York City he was only there for a day or so, and then he sneaked off to - we found out where he sneaked off to - was Western New York and stayed with his sister and then so that report - and how curious, I have it in the book, that when he was there that there were two cases of women being threatened. Heh heh! I’m not saying, I put that in there because it was curious but I did not push that that would have been Tumblety but, so it looks to me like Littlechild had knowledge pre-Boulogne of something but post-Boulogne he was absolutely wrong, he thought that Tumblety died somewhere whatever.  But what that shows me is two things, one is it makes me more convinced that that dossier was not in Special Branch. One of the questions would be:  If it’s true that Tumblety made it to Havre and got to New York City, Littlechild should certainly have known because 1884 is when Superintendent Byrnes made a comment that any time that there is a prisoner that crosses from England over to the United States, especially because of the dynamiters, that they are in cable contact to keep an eye on this person.  That’s exactly, you know, Byrnes said that he knew Tumblety was coming a week prior, so why didn’t Littlechild know?  The answer was there were two people in charge of Special Branch. It wasn’t just Littlechild, it was also Anderson and when you look at the Old Bailey report, Littlechild was knee deep in these Fenian issues of 1888.  Littlechild was involved with that kind of stuff even when you look at the Old Bailey reports that they mention Chief Inspector Littlechild in, I think it is Pigott, you could see Anderson wanting Littlechild still being involved with it because we had all that Parnell issue still involved so you know Anderson that was a seriously important thing so it was Anderson that took the charge of Tumblety not Littlechild so Littlechild - in Littlechild’s memoirs when Littlechild talks, he talks about this time frame, it’s all about the Fenian issues and he talks about what he remembered was that every Sunday morning is when they had their meetings with all the top officials and so in Sunday morning you could see that that’s where Littlechild was in the know because he was part of this because Anderson was both in charge of the Whitechapel murders and the Special Branch that he would have known about Tumblety, when he was arrested, all that material, but once they left Boulogne you could see that Littlechild was no longer involved but at that time he was quite convinced that he was a very likely suspect although, so that’s kind of where I see it was more it was Anderson that was involved. Especially here we have Anderson contacting, this was November 22nd he contacted the Brooklyn chief of police asking for all information not just handwriting samples but all information on Tumblety with respect to the Whitechapel murders. And that’s what the report shows that was that the Superintendent Campbell of Brooklyn made a comment but he also contacted the San Francisco’s chief of police, or they were in dialogue, I mean we have conflicting reports of who contacted whom but in case of Brooklyn it clearly states that it was Anderson that contacted Campbell and November 22nd, on November 22nd right at the very time that, it was probably November 23rd is when he was first seen in Boulogne, so the next day is when Scotland Yard noticed that he was in Boulogne.  So by November 22nd they were still collecting information on this Tumblety while they were waiting for the gross indecency case they were collecting information on the Whitechapel case with Tumblety, so to me it just shows that Anderson here it is now, Tumblety has sneaked out of the country, quite embarrassing, so the question one person had was that if there was a - there were a couple of reports of an English detective in New York City, one was, like I was talking about the New York, New Orleans Daily Picayune said that there were two New York detectives and a London detective waiting for Tumblety when he landed then we had the New York World report of, they followed - so we had reporters and police following Tumblety out of the New York City harbour and went to that woman’s hotel or room but he first tried to open up a different door so it looks like he wasn’t specifically going for that room but that was the only one available, open at the time but he got in there, and so of course - then you’ve got the New York World reporter on the same day, on the same day reported with a New York Herald reporter about this person they had, how the New York World reporter said he had made an elaborate attempt at concealment and he said he was a typical English detective so the argument is: was that the same detective that the reporters from the New York Daily Picayune talked about? Was it maybe a private detective? But it was definitely somebody, they said English detective and the reason why I have made comments about travelling across the United States is because the numerous ports even here, the, when the reporter talked to the bartender and the bartender said that he wanted to know this fella named Tumblety and he was an English detective came over to get the chap that did it so now if you are a private detective trying to get your sureties back you wouldn’t be coming over to get the chap that did it, you’d be coming over to get your money. But then at the same day in the New York Herald that this other reporter said that he found, that he talked about the bartenders plural in McKenna’s saloon and that that particular reporter made the comment that this person, this strange person did not know much about New York so to me that sounds like there’s a person that hasn’t been hanging out in New York City for a long period of time because he looks kind of uncomfortable there and he made the comment that he’s looking for the chap that did it. So then in the Cincinnati Inquirer December 14th in Police Headquarters they said that they are talking about English officials in New York city running this investigation and that they were in Cincinnati looking for information.  So all of that data you would say that they were still concerned and now, but within a day or two that’s when Tumblety had sneaked out and gone to Western New York and so then they lost him. So the question is why would you - what could an English detective do, a Scotland Yard detective? He doesn’t have the authority to arrest Tumblety but it would be the same reason why they followed him in England, they followed him in France, it’s not - they wouldn’t arrest him, what they were looking for was, they were still doing an investigation and if they had anything on Tumblety at all, we don’t know how much they had because we don’t have the records, they might have been close with something or just like the reports were saying, when the report about Superintendent, the office of Superintendent Campbell said that they were looking for all information on Tumblety, as part of this investigation, if they found anything damning then they could easily have had the New York City detectives arrest him now because it’s no longer a misdemeanour case, if they officially charge him with some kind of let’s say felony now that would be extraditable that they are there to escort him back and so there would be reasons for this would happen, again it’s not that I’m guessing I’m looking at these four articles, newspaper articles that say it, and it’s not, like, did they all lie? So to me and it also explains why Littlechild did not, would not have known about that because he was not involved with it, it was Anderson that was involved with it. And then so –

JM: In your book you bring up a few other examples of the phrase “English detective” pretty much being used interchangeably with a Scotland Yard official to differentiate it from a private detective.

MH: Right.

JM: Now you covered a lot of ground just then so I want to go back and recap a couple of things. When Greaves first published his article on November 17th, the Kumblety one with the 'K', it was under the context of people who had been arrested for suspicion that week, the preceding week, so from the 10th let’s say through the 17th or something like that because he refers to, seemingly refers to Tumblety as being lumped in with what Greaves had said  “a score of men” being arrested this week on suspicion but he also then goes on to say “the right man still roams at large” so he was giving examples of people who had been arrested for suspicion the previous week, in early November, but that had been released.

MH: Right.

JM: And then you have the article that came out after the double event, around the 1st of October, October 4th, describing the American man arrested on suspicion of being the Whitechapel murderer wearing a slouch hat seemingly giving the detectives or the police a hard time, being difficult, maybe not giving his name, they had to search this American’s slouch hat wearing person’s lodgings in order to establish his identity.  Whether that’s Tumblety or not we don’t know but if there is, if it is, then there is a month long gap between his arrest if we take his word for it let’s say he went down to Whitechapel to view the scene of probably the Stride murder and he was arrested there, early October, but then you have Greaves not commenting about Tumbelty’s arrest until a month later, indicating that it had taken place just that week prior in early November, right?

MH: Right.

JM: So there’s a little bit of confusion there, so maybe a different American was arrested in early October, just a coincidence but it sounds kind of like Tumblety to me, the early October one, and so, if he was arrested let’s say for the benefit, out in early October and not after the Mary Kelly murder then it seems that he would have been quickly released within the following day, according to the press reports, right, if he was the American arrested on October 3rd he was released on October 4th. 

MH: Yes.

JM: And then on November 7th he’s arrested for the gross indecency and indecent assault.

MH: Or within, close to that.

JM: 6th/7th something like that and then on the 8th, the following day, the day before the Kelly murder, he along with his attorney appear at Marlborough Street Police Court for his remand hearing and the results of that remand hearing are unknown and that would have decided whether or not he would remain in jail until his committal hearing on the 14th or whether they would have granted him bail and that’s crucial if you believe Mary Kelly is a Ripper victim not knowing the results of that remand hearing, you know, is, weighs heavily for or against Tumblety being Jack the Ripper but we do know on, at the committal hearing on the 14th he was granted bail.

MH: Yes.

JM: And we have evidence, not only because he fled but because he has documentation that he produced directing his bank to supply the funds.

MH: Right, yes.

JM: That proves that on November 14th he was granted bail but there is no evidence whatsoever and Tumblety didn’t supply any documentation that he was actually also able to receive funds, let’s say, on November 8th for the remand hearing and how long that would have even taken, you know, if he was granted bail on November 8th -  it took him - on the 14th when we know he received bail it took him two days to actually be released, so he was granted bail, £300 on the 14th, he didn’t come up with the money until the 16th, okay, and then he was released so if a similar situation happened on November 8th then he might not have been even released until let’s say the 10th and that would account for his couple of days, he says…

MH: Okay let me stop you because I want to go back to -

JM: …it excludes him from being the murderer of Mary Kelly, so either way whether he was granted bail, that in itself could present a problem with time because, do you know what I am saying?

MH: Yes, let me go back to the first thing.  One of the things that they talk about is when we found the family members made a comment that this Maurice Fitzimmons, they knew that this Maurice Fitzimmons was arrested for the Whitechapel murders and so we know that he had to have visited his niece in Bath after the first arrest that he was there.  So when would that have been?  Would he have, after November 19th when he found out that he was going to be, you know, when he was giving the money and he was leaving would he spend the time to visit a relative or would he be spending the time trying to get out of England? So my point there is that there is a report that this being, it said that, his arrest for gross indecency  -  being his third arrest, so there is evidence that he was actually arrested yet another time so what I would say suggests that two things. One is that the Albert Chambers I’m still thinking that that is so Tumblety that that would have been his first arrest in the case but even the report says that that person was released immediately so Tumblety may not even have known that Scotland Yard now is taking him seriously but there could very well have been another arrest in that time and then, the other thing is, remember Tumblety always had, he was never without a bunch of jewellery, and it was hundreds of dollars of cash in one pocket so that first arrest – two things, one is I was going to report that in the book, then I was talked out of it because of you know the remand hearing.  If there was a posting of bail at the November 7th remand hearing that he would have had that money on his person because he was never without a lot of money but I didn’t put it in there because someone had told me that on those bails many times it’s not a, a sureties issue.  So I actually left it out, too bad I did. I mean, I still would have liked to have added that.  Maybe the next one I’ll add it. But look at all the reports with Tumblety, he always had his jewellery and he always had his cash in his pocket.

JM: So you are saying that he, if he was granted bail at the remand hearing on the 8th he might have used all the cash that he had available on his person to get out immediately.

MH: If that was required.

JM: And that’s why he would then later after his arrest for gross indecency be short of funds and then, you know, a week later have to instruct his bank to wire the £260.

MH: And it explains why he would have to do that because he always had money on him.  So that kind of explains where his money went the first time.

JM: Right, okay, that’s one of the key missing pieces of evidence in Tumblety is what happened at the remand hearing maybe somewhere there exists, you know, something that said he was able to pay it in full on the 8th and then would they have released him immediately?

MH: They would have.

JM: Or would they have taken like an extra day or something?

MH: You know one of the things that I point out is when you see a, my point is when he would have any kind of narcissistic rage, would be you’ve just got arrested for this and if there was any time that he would kind of retaliate, respond, it would be near that time, so it actually would, knowing Tumblety‘s personality, if he did start another rage since this would have been, if indeed he was the killer, he’s already killed, that’s the point where he would really go into rage, and then, but yes so, but the other thing is, though, this case is so old that it’s surprising that we have the evidence that we do and so it’s only because of reports that he was released that we have that so, so far the only thing we have would be evidence, is Tumblety himself, when he was asked “how long were you in prison?” When he was reported in the civil war, he recorded exactly how long he was in that Old Capitol prison for three weeks so in this case he said a couple of days so he didn’t, you know, one of the questions, you know, to me when I see Tumblety when he wrote his 1889 autobiography he did that within two months so that was January 30th,  he was being interviewed blaming actually the police, the detectives, the police for thinking that it’s an American with a slouch hat but within a week of that interview he published his next autobiography and really the only difference between the 1889 autobiography and the 1872 is that he has a chapter of vindication and he’s complaining about the New York papers, or the U.S. papers, and that, when you read it, it’s exactly because of the Ripper murders is what he was complaining about.

JM: Maybe he was more inclined to complain about like, you had mentioned when he was going under the name Maurice Fitzimmons to his family members there in England he had told them that he was arrested for the Whitechapel murders, now if that occurred after his arrest for gross indecency, like as he was fleeing and he went to visit them then you can see it be a part of a pattern of him almost being glad that he could say that he was arrested for the Whitechapel murders in an attempt to sweep under the rug the whole arrest for the gross indecency charges, which he would have been more embarrassed about, it’s almost like he felt, he could consider himself lucky that he had this other arrest, most notorious, that he was innocent of, that he could complain about, the Whitechapel murders, as opposed to this really embarrassing gross indecency and indecent assault arrest that he in fact was guilty of.

MH: Two things, one is -

JM: He’s pulling the curtains over the real reasons behind -

MH: Well if you look at his autobiography that he published within about a month of that when he complains about the treatment, he mentions nothing about London. I mean, if he was, kind of, wanting to push them away he would have made a comment about that. And he made no mention at all. And the other thing was, when that New York World reporter was reporting in January of 1889, people were wondering why he didn’t make a comment – he was trying to maybe shy away from his gross indecency arrest, remember nobody knew it was gross indecency until the 1990s, when that reporter was reporting on this, that reporter did not know that he was arrested for gross indecency, that he was only arrested for this Maiden Tribute Act so - which would conform to Jack the Ripper because it’s girls. So the interest that journalists had would have had nothing to do with the gross indecency, it would have everything to do with Jack the Ripper, that’s why he wanted that. So to me Tumblety was not hiding the fact that he had this gross indecency thing because nobody knew it.  

COMMENTARY

Let's see how well you did in identifying the howlers. They are set out below; but see my article Hawley's Howlers for further discussion/explanation of the howlers.

Howler No. 1: 'So even when you look at the Albert Chambers incident where that American who was bragging about wearing the American slouch hat'  - The Albert Chambers incident did not involve an American bragging about wearing an American slouch hat.

Howler No. 2:  'just a day after the double event murder' - The Albert Chambers incident occurred on the day of the double event.

Howler No. 3: 'And so in the November and December Central Criminal Court calendar record we see that he was entered into custody on November 7th so that means he had to have been arrested within 24 hours...it has to have been within 24 hours of  that entering into custody' - That's not true, he didn't have to be arrested within 24 hours of being entered into custody.

Howler No. 4: 'And clearly the next November 14th when they had the committal hearing, where the case would be even more solid, the magistrate allowed bail so here it is, so that he clearly would have, the same person would have allowed bail at the remand hearing' - This isn't true.

Howler No. 5: '...especially when we have three Scotland Yard officials stating that he was a suspect after the Kelly murder.' - Nope, three Scotland Yard officials never stated any such thing. 

Howler No. 6: 'And if he was in jail during the Kelly murder, and if these police officers were convinced that Mary Kelly was a Ripper victim, somebody would have said that but nobody did.' Complete logic fail.

Howler No. 7: 'and even in the interview with Tumblety in January 1889 they asked “how long were you in jail?” and he basically said “a couple of days”.'  He actually said "two or three days". 

Howler No. 8:'and November 19th is when they returned a true bill which means the jurors believed there was enough evidence to convict him for gross indecency' - No, that isn't what a true bill means.

Howler No. 9: 'So this right here was the time when Tumblety was convinced that he was going to jail.' Conclusion based on a false premise.

Howler No. 10: 'Chief Inspector Littlechild didn’t say “Got to Havre”, he didn’t, Littlechild didn’t know about that, what he saw was, he reported that he was first seen in Boulogne' - No, Littlechild did not report that Tumblety was first seen in Boulogne.

Howler No. 11: 'Well when that report came out that day he pulled in then he pulls up and here’s two New York City detectives, and one report has a Scotland Yard detective, waiting for him right at the La Bretagne' - Reliance on an obviously plagiarised report by someone who wasn't there.

Howler No. 12: 'and so that’s when Superintendent Byrnes, New York City Chief Detective, said that he had known that Tumblety was on his way to New York a week ago which was around the same time that the ship left on November 24th so Scotland Yard knew that Tumblety was on his way November 24th' - Equating Byrnes' knowledge with that of Scotland Yard without evidence. 

Howler No. 13: 'and here’s Chief Inspector Littlechild saying that he was first seen in Boulogne' - No allowances are being made for duplication in the howler count: it's the same howler again!

Howler No. 14: 'So the 19th was the - the true bill was issued and then here it is the 23rd he’s in Boulogne.  So in that time you could see that Scotland Yard were trying to keep an eye on him' - You cannot see that Scotland Yard were trying to keep an eye on Tumblety simply because Littlechild believed he visited in Boulogne when he wrote to Sims in 1913.

Howler No. 15: 'as they were if he was indeed of interest of something and it could not have been just the gross indecency thing if they are following him around'...So they had that interested in following him' - No evidence of Scotland Yard following Tumblety around. 

Howler No. 16: 'So the interesting thing, though, is if you look at Littlechild, his letter, anything pre-Boulogne is, he nails it exactly' - Not quite, for he gives the impression that Tumblety fled for France while he was remanded on bail, which wasn't the case.

Howler No. 17: '...there were two people in charge of Special Branch. It wasn’t just Littlechild, it was also Anderson and when you look at the Old Bailey report, Littlechild was knee deep in these Fenian issues of 1888.' - There is no Old Bailey report showing that Littlechild was knee deep in Fenian issues of 1888.

Howler No. 18: 'Littlechild was involved with that kind of stuff even when you look at the Old Bailey reports that they mention Chief Inspector Littlechild in, I think it is Pigott, you could see Anderson wanting Littlechild still being involved with it because we had all that Parnell issue still involved' - Just nonsense.

Howler No. 19: 'in Littlechild’s memoirs when Littlechild talks, he talks about this time frame, it’s all about the Fenian issues and he talks about what he remembered was that every Sunday morning is when they had their meetings with all the top officials and so in Sunday morning you could see that that’s where Littlechild was in the know because he was part of this' - Not what Littlechild said.

Howler No. 20: 'Especially here we have Anderson contacting, this was November 22nd he contacted the Brooklyn chief of police asking for all information not just handwriting samples but all information on Tumblety with respect to the Whitechapel murders.'  Anderson did not contact the Brooklyn chief of police asking for handwriting samples (it was the San Francisco chief of police who offered handwriting samples, and Anderson accepted the officer) nor, as far as is known, did Anderson ask for information from the Brooklyn police chief with respect to the Whitechapel murders.

Howler No. 21:  'it was probably November 23rd is when he was first seen in Boulogne' - No evidence that Tumblety was ever seen in Boulogne.

Howler No. 22: 'So by November 22nd they were still collecting information on this Tumblety while they were waiting for the gross indecency case they were collecting information on the Whitechapel case with Tumblety' - No evidence that Scotland Yard were collecting information on the Whitechapel case with respect to Tumblety.

Howler No. 23: 'there were a couple of reports of an English detective in New York City, one was, like I was talking about the New York, New Orleans Daily Picayune said that there two New York detectives and a London detective waiting for Tumblety when he landed' - Reliance again on a column written by a plagiarist who wasn't there.

Howler No. 24: 'then you’ve got the New York World reporter on the same day, on the same day reported with a New York Herald reporter about this person they had, how the New York World reporter said he had made an elaborate attempt at concealment and he said he was a typical English detective so the argument is: was that the same detective that the reporters from the New York Daily Picayune talked about?' - The World and Herald reporters, upon whom Hawley relies, were clear that no English detective was waiting for Tumblety when he arrived, just two New York detectives whereas the Daily Picayune correspondent (singular) said the opposite.

Howler No. 25: 'Was it maybe a private detective, but it was definitely somebody'  - It was not definitely somebody at all because the two journalists and/or bartender could have concocted the story.

Howler No. 26: 'now if you are a private detective trying to get your sureties back you wouldn’t be coming over to get the chap that did it, you’d be coming over to get your money.' - But you might well be telling a bartender that you were coming over to get the chap who did it.  And if you were a Scotland Yard detective, you couldn't have come over to get the chap who did it, having no power of arrest.

Howler No. 27: 'So then in the Cincinnati Inquirer December 14th in Police Headquarters they said that they are talking about English officials in New York city running this investigation and that they were in Cincinnati looking for information.' - Factually true, in the sense that this was what the report said, albeit not official information from police headquarters, but not relevant and does not justify the conclusion drawn from it. 

Howler No. 28: 'So the question is why would you - what could an English detective do, a Scotland Yard detective? He doesn’t have the authority to arrest Tumblety but it would be the same reason why they followed him in England, they followed him in France, it’s not - they wouldn’t arrest him, what they were looking for was, they were still doing an investigation and if they had anything on Tumblety at all, we don’t know how much they had because we don’t have the records, they might have been close with something or just like the reports were saying, when the report about Superintendent, the office of Superintendent Campbell said that they were looking for all information on Tumblety, as part of this investigation, if they found anything damning then they could easily have had the New York City detectives arrest him now because it’s no longer a misdemeanour case, if they officially charge him with some kind of let’s say felony now that would be extraditable that they are there to escort him back and so there would be reasons for this would happen' - Reveals lack of knowledge of extradition procedure.  This would not have happened. 

Howler No. 29: 'again it’s not that I’m guessing' - Oh yes he is.

Howler No. 30: 'I’m looking at these four articles, newspaper articles that say it' - Those four articles do not say that there was a Scotland Yard detective in New York.

Howler No. 31: 'JM: In your book you bring up a few other examples of the phrase “English detective” pretty much being used interchangeably with a Scotland Yard official to differentiate it from a private detective. MH: Right' - Hawley should have told Menges that he doesn't include any examples in his book of the phrase 'English detective' pretty much being used interchangeably with a Scotland Yard official to differentiate it from a private detective.

Howler No. 32:  'JM: So there’s a little bit of confusion there, so maybe a different American was arrested in early October, just a coincidence but it sounds kind of like Tumblety to me, the early October one...if he was the American released on October 3rd he was released on October 4th. MH: Yes.' - He means the late September arrest (which, upon examination of the facts, doesn't look much like Tumblety).

Howler No. 33: 'JM: And we have evidence, not only because he fled but because he has documentation that he produced directing his bank to supply the funds. MH: Right, yes' - Failure to point out that the documentation only appears to have been for a letter of credit to be sent to him in the mail: there is no evidence of wire transfer of any funds to London in November 1888.

Howler No. 34: 'If there was a posting of bail at the November 7th remand hearing that he would have had that money on his person because he was never without a lot of money but I didn’t put it in there because someone had told me that on those bails many times it’s not a, a sureties issue.  So I actually left it out, too bad I did. I mean, I still would have liked to have added that.  Maybe the next one I’ll add it. But look at all the reports with Tumblety, he always had his jewellery and he always had his cash in his pocket. JM: So you are saying that he, if he was granted bail at the remand hearing on the 8th he might have used all the cash that he had available on his person to get out immediately. MH: If that was required. JM: And that’s why he would then later after his arrest for gross indecency be short of funds and then, you know, a week later have to instruct his bank to wire the £260. MH: And it explains why he would have to do that because he always had money on him.  So that kind of explains where his money went the first time.' - It can't explain where the money went at the first hearing because bail wasn't taken in the form of cash security.  There is also no evidence of Tumblety instructing his bank to wire any money to him.

Howler No. 35: 'JM: Right, okay, that’s one of the key missing pieces of evidence in Tumblety is what happened at the remand hearing maybe somewhere there exists, you know, something that said he was able to pay it in full on the 8th and then would they have released him immediately? MH: They would have.- Not if sureties were also required. 

'Howler No. 36: 'so far the only thing we have would be evidence, is Tumblety himself, when he was asked “how long were you in prison?” When he was reported in the civil war, he recorded exactly how long he was in that Old Capitol prison for three weeks so in this case he said a couple of days' - He said "two or three days".

So that's the official total.  36 howlers in that single extract lasting 42 minutes, so very close to an average of one a minute.  Perhaps you have found even more?  There are certainly more that could be found when he came onto the subject of the twelve constables (which you can read about here.

Or go to Hawley's Howlers.

David Barrat
25 May 2019