|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Lindsey Hunter
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 11:21 pm: |       |
}I have formed my own theory about the Whitechapel murders. I have been researching about Jack the Ripper for some time now, and I have found that, of all the suspects, one of them truly stands out as the possible assailant. 'Dr.' Francis Tumblety. Being as he was the prime suspect, I think it is only fair that it is looked in to more deeply. After reading about him on this site, I started a deeper search.
I began by looking in to the victims. I wrote down the information I could find on there appearances, and the details on there murders. The first three victims had brown hair, and setting a theory for that, which after reading and finding the description of the fourth victim i came to find incorect. The fifth victim also did not fall under that theory. All of the victims were between five foot high and five foot seven, allowing a man of any stature near that to over power them.
I then went on to the suspect himself, ignoring the fact that I could still not find anything to bring these five victims together except for the fact that they were all prostitutes. Upon looking at Dr. Tumblety's life, I found it quite curios that the 'doctor' would be charged with being an accomplis to President Lincolns assasination, and later, to have been seen with at a hotel, and having been kicked out of the hotel where the assasin of President Garfield was. It was said by a witness shortly after the Eddowes murder that the man she had been seen with was of fair complexion, with a mustache, medium build, roughly thirty years of age and standing at about five foot seven inches. The witness also said that the man had an overall appearance of a sailor. Dr. Tumblety had been arrested on more than one occasion, in the United States and in Europe, for dressing as a military man and wearing medals he had not earned.
While he was in Montreal in 1857 he was charged with performing an illegal abortion in September of that year. He also reportedly had a fascination with the womb and kept a few in jars in his office. Three of the murdered women's wombs appeared to be the target, and in two cases, the Ripper ripped it out and took it with him.
When he arrived in england, the murders soon followed suit. He was charged with the murders of I believe five men men between July and November of 1888. And then with the Whitechapel murders, but there was not enough evidence to sustain his guilt. He posted bail and upon that, fled the country to France, where he then proceeded to Ellis Island in New York. Shortly after his arrival in Manhattan, a prostitute by the name if Carrie Brown was murdered in the same fashion as those killed in England by Jack the Ripper. Many believed that he had come to America and this in it self provided them with the same MO as the Ripper.
I have drawn the conclusion that with this evidence, Dr. Tumblety is in fact, the whitechapel killer. Although much evidence has been destroyed or is no longer available for any type of research, due to loss, or looting. I would love any feed back on this, and if I have come across any inconsistancies please let me know. |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 588
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 11:06 am: | |
Lindsey,
You have stated many facts, but I'm afraid that when put together they don't add up to a conclusive case against Tumbelty. Also, I believe Tumblety was much taller than 5'7" -- I think around 5" 11". And while he did often wear a sort of military suit, from the descriptions I have read and the one sketch we have, I don't think it would be confused with a "sailor's uniform."
For example, you note that the victims were between 5'0" and 5'7". True, but so were nearly all women in London in 1888! You note that all victims were prostitutes. True, but what other sort of women would be "available" to the killer in the middle of the night? You see, adding together a lot of facts does not necessarily lead to a conclusion.
Andy S. |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 917
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 11:35 am: | |
Hi Lindsey
Thanks for explaining your theory. Andy has laid out some problems with it. I might point out also that Dr. Tumblety had a very long life, having been born, we now think, in 1830 in Ireland, making him 58 at the time of the Whitechapel murders, and he would die in 1903 making him 73 at the time of his death. We have to explain why we can't pin other murders on him during his lifetime.
You state: "When he arrived in England, the murders soon followed suit. He was charged with the murders of I believe five men between July and November of 1888."
Your last statement is definitely in error. Tumblety was arrested for indecent practices with men, i.e., homosexuality, which was illegal in England at the time. He was not charged with murdering men.
You say he "arrived in England" which seems to imply he was in England for the first time in 1888. This isn't so. He was in England in 1873-1874 and tried to set up practices in Liverpool and London.
As for your claim that Tumblety committed the Carrie Brown murder in New York City, we have no evidence that either Tumblety or George Chapman, two men sometimes named as suspects in the murder, were anywhere near the murder scene on April 23, 1891. In fact, Wolf Vanderlinden in three recent articles in Ripper Notes has made an excellent case that Arbie La Bruckman was the murderer.
All the best
Chris
(Message edited by chrisg on September 15, 2004)
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 285
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 8:09 am: | |
Hi Chris,
Actually, in the third part of that series I think Wolf actually made a case that La Bruckman was not the murderer of Carrie Brown, largely based upon the idea that if the info the police had on him (which is what others base their idea of guilt around) were actually as incriminating as some assume, the police wouldn't have felt the need to falsify evidence against Frenchy #1, as they could have just arrested La Bruckman.
And the same article has evidence that both Tumbelty and Chapman were probably nowhere near the crime scene at the time. (Chapman is ruled out more completely than Tumbelty in the alibi department.) Tumbelty also doesn't really meet the witness description for the man believed to be Brown's killer.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 923
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 8:39 am: | |
Hi, Dan
Many thanks for that explanation. I have not yet read Wolf's section 3 of his article but you are right we do have to explain why Frenchy no. 1 was put in the frame for the Carrie Brown murder and not La Bruckman.
All the best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, September 20, 2004 - 10:59 am: | |
Hi Lindsay,
I agree Tumblety is a good suspect. We know he was a suspect at the time of the murders and I believe he was in fact picked up and questioned for complisity in the Whitechaple murders. There are three reasons commentators give when they claim Tumblety could not be the ripper.
1. Tumblety was to old.
2. Tumblety was to tall
3. Tumblety was to gay.
4. Tumblety lived a long life after the the ripper murders and since serial killers do not just stop Tumblety must have killed women after he fled the country and he was never caught. You would think he would have been caught.
Reasons one and two in my opinion go hand in hand and they are based on eye witness testimony. Most people who claim to see the ripper claim he was between 5'5in tall and 5'7in tall and they describe the ripper as being in hi late twenties and early thirties. I my point out that some possible witnesses claimed the ripper was taller and older. I believe that it is possible that no one got a good look at the ripper and most eye witnesses are mistaken. The police knew what Tumblety looked like and they still brought him in for questioning. Inspector Abberline claimed that know one ever got a good look at the ripper. Robert Anderson and Donald Swanson claimed that they knew who the ripper was and that the only man who ever got a good look at him positively identified him. Of course there is some debate on who this witness was. Some commentators claim the witness was Shwartz while others argue that it was lewende but the identity of this witness is unknown. It is possible that Robert Anderson and Swanson believed the witness without question and they were willing to say that is that. However there witness could have been mistaken.
Reason three Tumblety's homosexuallity is a product of profileing. and profileing is in exact science and in fact it is just somebody's oppinion just because it is not common for a gay man to kill women doese not mean that it is imposible. There have been instances were gay men have killed women. I will point out that the ripper never had sex with his victims. Tumblety's homosexuality is also grey area. If certain accounts are to be believed he may very well have been bisexual.
The fourth point is agood one. Chris brought this up the fact that Tumblety lived a long live and lived meny years after the ripper murders. The fact that know other murders were ever attributed to him his an argument against Tumblety being the ripper. Tumblety's arrest record speaks for it self. It is true that he never was convicted of murder The closes crime he was tried for would be manslaughter. Ther is no real argument you can make against this point. You can make this argument for most ripper suspects. In my oppinion there are four real good suspects.
1. The insane jew. [Kosminski/Cohen]
2. Tumblety
3. Druitt
4. Chapman
Other then Chapman you can not pin murders on any of them. Of course the argument would be Druit Commited suicide before he could get caught. Kosminski/Cohen were caught and locked away. You still have toexplain why the murders stoped after Kelly and it took two and a halve years for them to lock up Kosminski and no more murders happend it that period. I have read that Cohen was locked up around the spring of 1889 so you are talking seven months after the Kelly murder. Anything short of catching the ripper a killer in the act of killing would not be enough to get a conviction and may explain why Tumblety was never caught and convicted of murder. If Tumblety was the ripper then I believed he had been killing for a long time before the Whitechaple murders. I believe that most serial killer start in there mid twenties or early thirties. After he reached a certain age it is just possible that his lust for killing faded.
Sorry for any mistakes I am going surfing for the first time since the huricanes and I am not going to proof read.
Your friend,CB |
Rob
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, October 15, 2004 - 10:06 am: | |
There have been many thories about who JTR was, and the name I hear most often, in my experience at least, is Francis Tumblety. However, I don't think he had anything to do with it - and neither did Druitt, Kosminski, or any other of the numerous people mentioned. Most likely, it was someone we haven't even considered - and after 116 years, never will be. |
Neil K. MacMillan
Detective Sergeant
Username: Wordsmith
Post Number: 114
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 31, 2004 - 12:29 pm: | |
CB and all;
My apologies for being away for so long. Busy as hell. I am unfamiliar that profiling is a science. Perhaps Glenn can shed some light there but if it is, it is not an exact science. We assume that Tumblety was a homosexual because he stated that he was. He was, by his own admission married. He states that finding his wife working in a brothel is the reason he became gay. Tumblety was not a paragon of honesty or virtue. That he was arrested for homosexual acts may count for very little as he may have been bi-sexual and there have been some bi-sexual serial killers.
Druitt is not a viable suspect in my mind. There is nothing in Montegue druitt's history that points to him being Jack the Ripper. He was not a violent man. He had no medical training although as his father was a doctor he may have acquired some. The telling point is that his reason for committing suicide was that he was afraid that he was going insane like his mother did. Thin "evidence" to link Druitt to the murders.
As to Chapman, usually poisoners stick with what they know. Poison. While there is an outside chance he switch his preferred methods, His tack was to marry his victims and poison them for their money as I recollect.
That leaves Kominski/ Cohen. I don't know much on him but he may be a likely suspect. I suspect however that Rob is correct and it was some nameless little person with a penchant for murder who likely died shortly after Mary Kelly's murder. Just my humble opinion, Neil |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2602
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 31, 2004 - 12:47 pm: | |
Neil,
You're absolutely right. Psychological profiling is not an exact science -- in fact, one of its most distinguished representatives, Robert Hazelwood, once said: "profiling is not a science -- it's an art".
I agree, the dismissal of Tumblety because he "probably may have been" a homosexual is somewhat questionable. He could, as you say, very well have been a bisexual (and he was, as you say, at one point married) and even if he would have been a homosexual, there ARE actually existing cases of homosexual murderers killing people of the opposite sex -- it's not common, but it happens.
I dismiss largely Tumblety on other grounds, though. Especially the fact that his excessive appearance doesen't fit any of the witness descriptions. Claims that his moustache should have been a fake and that he dressed up in disguise to fit in, is totally unsupported and has as little factual basis as the claims about him owning parts of female uteruses in glass jars (a story that is based on second-hand information and that has not been verified).
"As to Chapman, usually poisoners stick with what they know. Poison. While there is an outside chance he switch his preferred methods, His tack was to marry his victims and poison them for their money as I recollect.
That leaves Kominski/ Cohen. I don't know much on him but he may be a likely suspect. I suspect however that Rob is correct and it was some nameless little person with a penchant for murder who likely died shortly after Mary Kelly's murder. Just my humble opinion, N
We can't possibly know for sure, but I tend to agree with you on both counts.
I think the Ripper was a complete nobody and a local man.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Well, do you... punk?"
Dirty Harry, 1971 |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, December 31, 2004 - 3:59 pm: | |
A point (one that I have tried to make before):
Be careful about using the word homosexual as though people in 1888 might have used that word to define themselves. I am not sure that they would.
The religeous moral background of most people living then, the lack of writing about same sex matters in any easily available way, the lack of a language to use to explore the ideas, means i think that most people who were homosexuals, lived their lives as very frustrated and "outsider" hetero-sexuals.
T E Lawrence (of Arabia); Wilde and others might be classed in this way. Wilde was married with children, but as recent biographies have suggested, was probably involved in same-sex activities from an early age.
I am not saying there were no homosexuals in 1888, note, just that society at that time almost forced them to live a lie.
Now if MJD WAS homosexual (and we have no proof he was) then the frustration of that "strait-jacket" might have tipped an already unstable mind into a n antipathy to and perhaps hostility (even a violent hostility) to women.
I am sure much current domestic violence arises from the frustration people (especially poorly educated men) have in being unable to express themselves.
Ever experienced what its like to read a great book and suddenly to say to oneself - I have felt that!! And the ensuing relief that comes from realising that one is NOT alone. One has, all at once, a vocabulary for expressing that idea or issue.
It maybe that one feels a release, because one had felt guilty for having certain thoughts, or strange because no one else seemed to speak of such feelings - and all at once here is an author who is expressing the same thing.
Imagine then a world in which you do not have that option. All you feel is the restriction of being held in a marriage you feel is wrong; or feeling things for people that one is constantly told is sinful? How do you escape from it? How do you express that frustration.
Tumblety might have been more extrovert than Druitt, better travelled, more experienced in the underbelly of cities and society. one should be careful, I would suggest, of comparing them.
If Druitt had been "gay" it must have been a nightmare for him - the expectation that he should marry (and soon) and have children. In inability to express any feelings for other men to even to meet easily. the constant requirement to be seen to uphold dtandards, to function as straight in a straight world.
Might such a man lash out?
I don't know - no theory - just thoughts and ramblings,
Phil |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
