Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
About the Casebook

 Search:
 

Join the Chat Room!

Col. C. A. Dunham Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Edit Profile

Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Message Boards » Suspects » Tumblety, Francis » Col. C. A. Dunham « Previous Next »

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Timothy B. Riordan
Police Constable
Username: Timothy

Post Number: 1
Registered: 1-2005
Posted on Friday, February 11, 2005 - 1:28 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi,

I have enjoyed the discussions here and thought I’d share some of my own research. Hope you find it interesting.

After Tumblety’s arrest in London, the New York World issued a lengthy interview with Col. C. A. Dunham who claimed to have known Tumblety in Washington and later in Brooklyn. He is identified simply as a “well known lawyer living near Fairview, NJ.” This interview is particularly damning in that it is the main source for Tumblety’s hatred of women, and the only reference regarding his marriage to a prostitute and his possession of a collection of uteri. Given the importance of these allegations for Tumblety’s being the Ripper, it is strange that Dunham has received so little attention.

When one goes to check the facts of this story, there are immediate problems. There is no record of a Colonel C. A. Dunham serving in the Union army during the Civil War. The only close name is a Col. Charles L. Dunham who served in a mid-western regiment and this is not him. Dunham asserts that Tumblety’s office was on H Street in DC. In fact, all of Tumblety’s advertisements and the city directory show his office on Pennsylvania Ave – no where near H Street. The famous dinner, discussed by Dunham, takes place in the Doctor’s rooms above his office. Tumblety lived at the Willard Hotel during his stay in DC not above his office.

Charles A. Dunham was “well known,” as the New York World reported but not for the reason they stated. Dunham figured prominently, under the alias of Sanford Conover, in the Lincoln conspiracy trials. He conveniently provided evidence implicating high officials of the Confederate government in various plots, including the assassination of Lincoln. Unmasked in 1866, he was convicted of perjury and sent to prison. Two years later he was pardoned by President Johnson and was in New York, where he most likely met Tumblety for the first time. Dunham was not even in Washington while Tumblety was there. He was in the South and served a jail sentence in Richmond in 1863, being released in October.

The description of Tumblety’s collection of anatomical specimens does not ring true either. Dunham describes a typical anatomical museum well known in the quack medicine business of the late 19th century. It would have been typical for the 1880-1900 time period, when the interview was done. Such things did not exist in 1861. The earliest such anatomical museum was created in 1862 in New York and it was the only one for quite awhile. This is an anachronism thrown into the story to add to Tumblety’s menacing nature and hatred of women.

Dunham was a pathological liar yet it is the acceptance of his testimony that has been the basis for much of the speculation on Tumblety being the Ripper.

Best,

Tim
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer

Post Number: 532
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Friday, February 11, 2005 - 2:36 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Tim--You're information is correct, but I'm not sure I can entirely agree with your conclusion. C.A. Dunham was an agent provocateur--he certainly leaked false information into the press, and was involved in lots of bizarre schemes. But I'm not sure this equates with being a 'pathological liar.' His lies had a political motive. As Dunham was quite possibly an agent of Stanton, it has always struck me as probable that his presence in Tumblety's rooms was no accident; the army might well have been keeping tabs on the Doctor for various reasons, some of which have come to light recently. I think there was more going on then meets the eye; I've thought that for a good while. There's been a biography of C.A. Dunham out for a couple of years--a fact, I think, that's escaped the attention of students of the Ripper case. Cheers, RP
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jeffrey Bloomfied
Chief Inspector
Username: Mayerling

Post Number: 572
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Friday, February 11, 2005 - 9:47 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi all,

A recent study of the Lincoln Assassination has suggested that Sanford Conover may have been an agent, not for Stanton but for a gentleman named George Sanders (like the actor). George Sanders, in the 1840s and 1850s, had been a major wire puller in the Democratic Party (which dominated the Federal Government in that period). He didn't hold high position in the Government, but he did get nice government jobs until 1861. Sanders lived in New York City, but he fully sympathized with the South. He lived in Toronto and Montreal during the Civil War, working (officially) for the Hudson Bay Company in the those cities. Unofficially he was one of the leading Confederate "Commissioners" in Canada, involved in the various plots against the North - expecially after 1864 began. These were the attempts to free Confederate prisoners in northern prisons, an attempt to seize a warship on the Great Lakes, an attempt to burn down New York City (in November 1864), the attack on St. Albans, Vermont (and robbery of it's bank) by Confederate raiders), and the attempt (by Dr. Luke Blackburn) of sending germ laden clothing into northern cities.

The theory is that Sanders was aware of Booth's plot against Lincoln, although not involved in the plot himself. However, he knew that Stanton and the Radicals would use Booth's plot as a means for linking the entire South with guilt in Lincoln's murder. Therefore he arranged to have Dunham/Conover "assist" the Federal prosecution, until the right moment to "expose" him as a fraud (and so discredit the Federal prosecution!). If this is true, it worked beautifully. Sanders, despite his ties to the Confederate Government, was able to return to New York City in 1868, and died in 1873. He was buried in Greenwood Cemetery.

Jeff
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Timothy B. Riordan
Police Constable
Username: Timothy

Post Number: 2
Registered: 1-2005
Posted on Friday, February 11, 2005 - 11:33 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

RP

I was not aware of the biography - thnak you. I bought a copy on Amazon and eagerly look forward to reading it.

Not having seen it yet, I can not judge Dunham's motives during the Civil War. But during that period, he lied at every turn. He lied to the Confederates in Canada, he lied to the Military Tribunal in Washington and, when they exposed him, he lied about a plot on their part.

Leaving aside what he did in the War, there seems little political motive in his lying about Tumblety some 20+ years later.

Tim
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer

Post Number: 534
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Saturday, February 12, 2005 - 10:38 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Jeff--As always, thanks for that. In regards to Dunham, Carmen Cumming argues that he was a double agent; one of his talents was for planting false reports in the newspapers. Something of an early C.I.A. man. Cumming seems to believe that he was largely working in some obscure capacity for Stanton; but everything is a hall of mirrors, very difficult to interpret with any certainty.

Tim--Thanks. You're certainly in the right to question Dunham's credibility; but to me it becomes something of a psychological question. Is a man who spreads lies and intrigue (as Dunham did during the War) merely a liar? Or is there a difference between lying for political reasons and lying for the heck of it? You could certainly be right to think that such types are prone to lying, even when they retire to Jersey. I wouldn't bring it up, but it's a rather important point. Cumming might dispute the claim that Dunham wasn't in Washington at the same time as Tumblety. He places Dunham in Washington in 1861and states his activities in 1862 are all but obscure; he seems to have been moving about a fair bit. Personally, I'm not sure everything is quite as it seems. Glad to see you posting here. RP
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Malta Joe
Detective Sergeant
Username: Malta

Post Number: 77
Registered: 5-2004
Posted on Sunday, February 13, 2005 - 5:30 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Jeff's mentioning of Sanders being buried in the Greenwood Cemetery sparks an interesting old item. Daniel Johnson of the New Brunswick reader wrote a Tumblety article in 1989 well before the Littlechild Letter was publicly revealed. In it, he wrote that Tumblety "had raised the wrath of the Greenwood Cemetery officials" in 1865.

Tumblety's autobiography stated that the NY Sunday Post had printed an article that said, "Tumblety believes Stanton was instigated to arrest him by the proprietors of Greenwood Cemetery, who found that after (Tumblety) had re-located himself in Brooklyn, the sight of a hearse in that city was as rare as the approach of a comet, and if he is not put out of the way they will have to convert their grounds into gardens or city lots."

That was obviously written by Tumblety though he wouldn't admit it. The man had no sense of humor, and he was very deliberate + serious when he mocked people. I never could figure out what he had against that cemetery which would cause Tumblety to link the Greenwood name with his hated rival Stanton. I found most of Tumblety's tales to have a very morbid theme to them, and they often spoke of death, spirits, morticians, and graves.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jeffrey Bloomfied
Chief Inspector
Username: Mayerling

Post Number: 573
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Sunday, February 13, 2005 - 7:05 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi all,

This weekend I was at the 42nd Street Library, and I discovered that the New York Post (back in the 1860s, the "Evening Post" had an index (of sorts) that is on microfilm. However, the index for the period of the Civil War to 1888 is handwritten on some kind of index cards, and it is hardly complete (perhaps twenty or thirty topics per letter of the alphabet per year).

I shall try to pursue the matter of the article about Tumblety in the Post for 1865. I can't understand his grudge against Greenwood (back then "Green - wood") Cemetery. It's quite a fascinating place to investigate. Among those there are Boss Tweed, Lola Montez, and the "Wizard of Oz" Frank Morgan. George N. Sanders is not the only "Copperhead" (Northern Democrat supporting the Confederacy) in Greenwood. It also has the grave of Conferate Colonel Robert M. Martin, who led the Confederate agents in the plot to burn down New York City in November 1865 (Col. Martin settled in New York in the 1870s, and died there in 1900). For an interesting account of Martin's plot see Nat Brandt's THE MAN WHO TRIED TO BURN NEW YORK (Syracuse University Press, 1986).

Unfortunately, there was no mention of Doc Tumblety in the Brandt book.

Best wishes,

Jeff
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Timothy B. Riordan
Police Constable
Username: Timothy

Post Number: 3
Registered: 1-2005
Posted on Monday, February 14, 2005 - 8:23 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi all,

That article is mentioned on p. 29 of the 1866 autobiography. It is described as being from the Sunday Mercury not the New York Post - are these papers the same?

I always thought the editor was poking fun of both Tumblety and Stanton. The choice of the Greenwood Cemetery was simply that it was a well known cemetery and would prove the point. There is nothing in the Brooklyn Daily Eagle at this time to suggest that there was any real trouble.

Tim
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Malta Joe
Detective Sergeant
Username: Malta

Post Number: 78
Registered: 5-2004
Posted on Monday, February 14, 2005 - 12:57 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Tim,

You're right. I accidently typed in the "Sunday Post" when I meant to type in the "Sunday Mercury." I agree that there was probably no real connection between Stanton + this cemetery. But somewhere in Tumblety's warped-mind he desired to link these two together as being in cahoots. I don't know why though.

You could be right about the Editor making sport of the whole thing, but the lack of respect shown to the deceased in this news item does have a strong Tumblety authorship sound to it. It should be remembered that the Dec 2, 1888 NY World hinted strongly about Tumblety "dictating" the way news items are to be written about him in the papers. You figured he flashed a lot of money at these Editors to obtain that status.

It's great to have you aboard in the Tumblety-zone here, Tim! That was a fine initial posting and you really did your homework.

To briefly change the topic, I heard from the NARA last Saturday. They have thoroughly checked their records, but no paperwork has survived at all for Private George Torry. He was the soldier who had agreed with Tumblety in the purchasing of a forged military discharge. The NARA checked the pention records of this soldier in one last final hope, but they came up empty.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg

Post Number: 1311
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Monday, February 14, 2005 - 9:15 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Joe, Tim, Jeff et al.

Jeff and Joe, be kind to Tim, he's a fellow Marylander. . .

You might like to know that Tim, who is connected to Maryland's colonial capital of St. Mary's City and I believe teaches at St. Mary's College (do I have that correct, Tim?) has written an interesting book about a man named Richard Ingle who raided the then budding colony of Maryland in 1645.

Ingle was from the area that is now the East End of London, and Tim's book, which I had the pleasure of proofreading in my capacity as an editorial assistant with the Maryland Historical Society, is called The Plundering Time.

Tim himself can say more about his research on Tumblety. Meanwhile, though, I wanted to welcome you, Tim, and say that it's great that so many people are now actively researching the career of the good doctor. It could be that we will finally suss the guy out and we will finally know what Tumbley was up to both in 1888 and at other times during his nefarious career.

Best regards

Chris George
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Timothy B. Riordan
Police Constable
Username: Timothy

Post Number: 4
Registered: 1-2005
Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 7:54 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Thank you all for such a warm reception. Chris's description is correct. I am a historical archaeologist by occupation and have had a long standing interest in the mystery of Jack the Ripper. I find Doctor Tumblety to be an interesting character and hope to be doing much more research on him in the future

Tim
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Kelly Robinson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Kelly

Post Number: 133
Registered: 2-2004
Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 3:59 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Joe,
Are you the same Joe that wrote the Tumblety article for the current Ripperologist? If so, I have a couple of questions I'd like to ask.
Thanks,
-K

"The past isn't over. It isn't even past."
William Faulkner
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Malta Joe
Detective Sergeant
Username: Malta

Post Number: 79
Registered: 5-2004
Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 11:00 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Kelly,

Yeah, I know all about the guy who wrote that article. I wouldn't trust one word which comes from that clown's mouth. The sad part is that I have to look at his ugly face in the mirror each morning when I shave!! Yes Kelly, I wrote the basis of that article, and Chris + Jeff + Anthony Pitch wrote the intelligent parts. Just click on the red Malta Joe thing to the left to contact me, and I'll do my best to answer your questions. Thanks for reading the article.
Joe
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Timothy B. Riordan
Police Constable
Username: Timothy

Post Number: 5
Registered: 1-2005
Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 11:23 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi all,

Got a copy of the Cumming book and am reading it avidly. This is a very well researched book and given Dunham’s slippery nature, a major accomplishment. While I have not finished the whole book yet, what I have read convinces me even more of the pathological nature of Dunham’s lying. But what is more important here is his relationship to Tumblety.

Dunham’s story reports that he was in Washington in 1861 where he met Tumblety a few days after the Battle of Bull Run (21 July). Cumming reports that Dunham was then running a scam by claiming to raise a regiment, collecting money and supplies but not actually recruiting. He did go to Washington in July as Colonel of a Regiment seeking recognition of his recruiting efforts and more money. While Dunham was in Washington at this time, Tumblety was not. He was in New York and in July had just begun advertising his pimple banisher in the pages of Harper’s Weekly. These ads would run until mid October and list his office at 499 Broadway. Tumblety would not start an expensive ad campaign at the time he was not resident at his office.

A second problem with the story, is the report of the dinner organized by Tumblety. All of the available evidence shows that, when he did get to Washington, his office was always on Pennsylvania Ave not on H Street, that he lived at the Willard Hotel and never had rooms above his office. The description of Tumblety’s living arrangement fits his later residence in Brooklyn not Washington. This dinner never took place as described. Dunham specifically describes Tumblety’s cases of human parts as an “anatomical museum.” Such things did not exist at the time the dinner was supposed to have taken place

Dunham said that Tumblety’s suit against the Canterbury Music Hall was instituted that day after he and his Lt. Col. confronted him about his portrayal on the stage. The performance that brought on the suit took place on 7 March 1862 and the suit was filed the next day. While much of his whereabouts for 1862 are obscure, in February Dunham was in New York and there is no evidence he went to Washington. More importantly, the charade of recruiting a regiment was long over by this time.

Cumming sums up Dunham’s problem with the truth by saying, “An acquaintance claimed that if Dunham’s legal talent had equaled his talent for lying, he would have been one of the most successful lawyers of the age.” As far as his 1888 interview is concerned, nothing in it can be accepted as true unless it is corroborated by other witnesses.

Best,

Tim
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg

Post Number: 1331
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 2:27 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Tim

Being a historical archaeologist in the Ripper case raises frightening possibilities, for example that we might soon have Dr. Tumblety sitting up his grave leering at us with rouged lips and cheeks. An absolutely obscene thought! blush

Incidentally, Tim, I am glad that it looks as if we may be able to tie down Colonel Dunham's movements and the probable mistruths about Tumblety. The thing is though how much of what was said about Tumblety in 1888 spread by the good doctor himself, and how much newspaper embroidering on the truth, etc.? Tumblety seemed to thrive on publicity, perhaps reasoning that even "bad" publicity was good publicity, and perhaps he thought it could be all to the good for his practice and his cures.

Best regards

Chris George
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Malta Joe
Detective Sergeant
Username: Malta

Post Number: 80
Registered: 5-2004
Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 9:55 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

It sounds like you've got a really good book there, Tim. I'm not surprised. When RJ recommends a piece of literature it's always is worthwhile to read it. Tumblety's July to mid-October 1861 stay on Broadway doesn't conflict with any material I have on him concerning his whereabouts in that time period. (Thanks for that info.) I had the quack riding into Fort Corcoran near Georgetown sometime between the dates of June 4 - July 16, 1861. I suppose he could have shadowed the 13th NY Infantry Regiment at Fort Corcoran in the DC area during June and still be in line with the July to mid-October dates in NY. We know by Dec 4, 1861 he was back in DC because Mr. Perceval's Canterbury Music Hall was performing "Tumblety Undone" that night.

Even though Tumblety was an eccentric traveler who would "up + go" at any time (as McGarry had reported) those 1861 Broadway ads you mentioned do favor him as probably spending a lot of his in NY during this time. I believe it was Dunham who walked into Tumblety's Brooklyn office after the Civil War and persuaded the doctor to reluctantly hand over his autobiography. I might just take a look at that Cummings book myself now!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Malta Joe
Detective Sergeant
Username: Malta

Post Number: 81
Registered: 5-2004
Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 10:27 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

One more thing that could be added is that Tumblety probably would have gottten out of the DC area as the Battle of Bull Run approached in northern Virginia. I could see him heading north to NY for safety. He did the same thing in the summer of 1863 when Lee advanced on Gettysburg and the DC area was again threatened. Tumblety sought the safety in NY at that time, too.

Sorry about the poor typing effort in my last posting. I can do better than that. What I was trying to say was that I agree with the assessment that if Tumblety was paying out money to advertise for his Broadway services, then he most likely spent much of his time in NY during that July to mid-Oct period.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Timothy B. Riordan
Police Constable
Username: Timothy

Post Number: 6
Registered: 1-2005
Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 11:07 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Chris,
That is a truly frightening vision. I may not sleep tonight. My impression is that Tumblety tried very hard to project a respectable image. I would find it hard to believe that he intentionaly sought bad press.

Joe,
Yes, it would be hard to see Tumblety not being there when the ads are published. In looking at his ads in Toronto, Montreal, etc., a good sign that the "Doctor is in" is the persistence and quantity of advertising. What evidence places Tumblety in Washington during that period? Is this a contemporary reference? Certainly it was easy enough to move back and forth. Dunham did it at about the same time. I could see Tumblety scurrying to Washington to see what was going on and then bouncing back to New York.

I have often wondered about that performance in December. The earliest of Tumblety's ads, that I could find, is in January 1862. While it might indicate he was in DC, it might just be a travelling show. The "Carte de Visite" song which mentions Tumblety was performed by Tony Pastor in New York some time late in 1861. Interestingly, the featured performer on 7 March. which prompted Tumblety to sue, was also Tony Pastor.

Best, Tim
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg

Post Number: 1338
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Friday, February 18, 2005 - 1:34 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Tim

One thing that is mystifying is why there is so much coverage of Tumblety in late 1888 in American newspapers but not in British newspapers. One would think that someone being named Jack the Ripper in a world famous case would be news in the British newspapers. Did the British have more than enough domestic news on the case and other matters to pick up what up what was being said in the U.S. press? We might posit a Scotland Yard cover-up of information on Tumblety as Stewart Evans and Paul Gainey hypothesized in their book. Although that might not stop the British papers picking up information on Dr. T. This is why I somehow think that Tumblety might have spread the word about himself being a suspect in the case. How else would the American press have known about it if it wasn't in the British press, unless of course it all eminated perhaps from the news of the unnamed Scotland Yard man trailing Tumblety from London.

All the best

Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Timothy B. Riordan
Police Constable
Username: Timothy

Post Number: 7
Registered: 1-2005
Posted on Friday, February 18, 2005 - 11:19 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Chris,

I tend to think a simple economic explantation is easiest. The Ripper case was the biggest story all over the world. Unfortunately for the American newspapers, the only part of the story that they had was what came over the wires. For most of the time, they were on the sidelines. Tumblety was a godsend for them. Their reporters could seek out people who knew him and write page after page about him. He was tailor made to sell newspapers. In England, Tumblety was one of hundreds of suspects in the case, and not a very good one apparently. But in America, he was our one and only. To me, that explains the difference in press coverage.

Best, Tim
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jeffrey Bloomfied
Chief Inspector
Username: Mayerling

Post Number: 574
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Saturday, February 19, 2005 - 1:43 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi all,

Re: The New York (or Sunday) Mercury - I am inclined to doubt the 42nd Street Library has this on microfilm, as their collection seems to stress those newspapers which had long, illustrious careers (the N Y Times, the N Y Post, the Daily News, the N Y Herald, the N Y Tribune, the N Y Herald - Tribune, the Sun, the World, the World, Telegram, and Sun, the Journal American, the Brooklyn Eagle). However, it may be that the New York Historical Society has the Mercury on microfilm or microfiche. I will try to get there at some point.

Some random thoughts of the summer of 1861: Noting how Dunham/Conover seems connected to some frauds on the army in the First Bull Run (or First Manassas) Campaign, I was considering the fact that it looks like it was connected with the Irish Brigade. I had recently been reading a book with that title, dealing with the Irish Americans under Thomas Meagher who fought in the Army of the Potomac from 1861-1865. Meagher was not their leader throughout the war (after 1863 he rarely had a military post, and when he did it was with Sherman not Grant). But Meagher filled in as leader after the original leader, Colonel Michael Corcoran (for whom the Fort was named) was captured in the first battle fo Bull Run/Manassas Junction. Corcoran would be in Libby Prison in Richmond for almost a year before he was traded for a Confederate prisoner of like rank.

Paul Jones book THE IRISH BRIGADE was a fair account of the Irish - American soldiers in the Army of the Potomac, but it glossed over many points. One thing was that it kept mentioning the well planned parties and social gatherings that the Brigade's leaders threw for various corps commanders and generals, but it did not mention the negative side of this. The Irish soldiers got a reputation (partly based on stereotypes, to be sure) of being alcoholics or drunks. This may have to do with the results of all those nice parties they threw. However, in the cases of Corcoran and Meagher, there is a more serious reason to consider this. In December 1863, Corcoran died after falling off a horse. It has been suggested that he was drunk at the time. In 1867 Meagher had been appointed to a high post in the Montana territory. There is some dispute as to whether he was acting secretary, or acting governor, or actual governor. In any case, while on a tour by steamboat up the Missouri River, Meagher fell off and drowned. Again, it was suggested he had been drinking when the accident happened. However (to add to the issue of what happened to Meagher) he may have been murdered by British agents who feared he was going to be the head of an Irish-American/Fenian army invading Canada.

I mention all this because it does seem (in a nebulous way) of linking several different figures to the war (at least at one time: July 1861) to the Fort Corcoran/Washington area, and it reminds us of the suggestions of links between Tumblety and the Fenians.

Tony Pastor and his "Tumblety song": Just a question to you all - you are aware that Pastor was a considerably important singer turned impressario of the gilded age period in the American Theatre? Among others whose career he aided was Lilian Russell.

Jeff
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Malta Joe
Detective Sergeant
Username: Malta

Post Number: 82
Registered: 5-2004
Posted on Saturday, February 19, 2005 - 12:35 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Chris - I share your suspicion on Tumblety tipping the press off about him being a suspect. The most peculiar news item I've read on Tumblety is from the Dec 13, 1888 Bucks County Gazette: "(Tumblety) talked a great deal about the butcheries, dropped mysterious hints, and was arrested - probably what he wanted." Oddly, it was Col. Dunham who accused Tumblety of this same behavior in St. Louis during the spring of 1865 prior to the quack's Federal arrest. Dunham said, "Tumblety purposely brought about his own arrest by sending anonymous letters to the Federal Authorities to the effect that Blackburn and himself were identical. His object of course was notoriety."

The similarites of these two accounts are very apparent. I know of a researcher who studied Tumblety and dismissed him as a suspect because he felt Tumblety was conducting the same charade in 1888 London as he did in 1865 St. Louis. I personally don't eliminate Tumblety as a suspect because of this possibility, but I could see how it can deter others.
Joe
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Malta Joe
Detective Sergeant
Username: Malta

Post Number: 83
Registered: 5-2004
Posted on Saturday, February 19, 2005 - 1:07 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Tim - I'm ready to answer your question you had for me concerning "What evidence places Tumblety in Washington DC during that period?" (I'm sure you mean the summer of 1861 time period.) Well, this isn't evidence, but I think you'll still find it convincing:

By taking a look at the April 5, 1881 Rochester Daily Union's article, we read how Tumblety had ridden into Fort Corcoran near Georgetown when the 13th Regiment was there. This was the 13th NY Infantry Regiment which was organized and mustered out of Rochester, NY. This whole article can be read on the "13th NY Infantry Regiment" thread the Casebook has. (You've probably already have done this. By the way, Jeff had a super final posting on that thread!) The source of this Rochester paper's article quite possibly could have come from the soldiers themselves who were returning to their upper New York home town after the war. The article stated that Tumblety was known to these soldiers.

Next, by going to google and typing in "Union Regiments New York" we can click into the civilwararchives.com web site. Scroll way down to "Infantry." On the right column you'll click on "13th Regiment Infantry - Rochester Regiment." Going down to the 2nd paragraph marked "SERVICE" we read how the Rochester Regiment was camped on Meridian Hill until June 3, 1861. Then from June 4 to July 16, 1861 they were at Fort Corcoran. Then they marched out of the Fort and had a lovely time at Bull Run in Manassas. We finally read how they were given the "DUTY in the DEFENSES of WASHINGTON" commencing after Bull Run and lasting until March 1862.

I first concluded that Tumblety's visit to Fort Corcoran to have been between these specified dates of June 4- July 16, 1861. But reading the material more closely, I 've discovered something I missed. The first paragraph had stated that this Rochester Regiment's "DEFENSE of WASHINGTON" duty took place in two segments with the first segment being from Aug 1861 to Oct 1861. It does plainly state that this regiment was stationed in Fort Corcoran during that time. This does open the possibility that the Rochester Daily Union's article could have been reporting of Tumblety's mounted visit into Fort Corcoran as having been conducted during Aug 1861, which of course could legitimize Dunham's claim that Tumblety was in the DC area shortly after Bull Run.

There was no mention of the 13th Regiment being staioned at Fort Corcoran other than the time periods of June 4 - July 16, 1861 or Aug - Oct 1861. I think Tumblety would have visited the Fort during both time segments, and he made sure to scamper off to Broadway before the bullets started to fly at Manassas. I still think he would have spent a lot of his Aug - Oct 1861 time in his NY office in accordance with his Harper's Weekly ads.

I could see why you wouldn't place too much faith in Tumblety's words in his autobiography that said he went to Washington shortly after the outbreak of the war. I could also see how you'd prefer not to take the words of a shady character like Dunham at face value. But to me, the military logs of this Regiment's activity combined with the Rochester Union's article swerves me into the belief that Tumblety was indeed present in the DC area during 1861.

Hey, thanks to you + Jeff for the Tony Pastor info!!! It was good of you two to share it. The Casebook has the billing for "Tumblety Undone" in the Evening Star's Dec 4, 1861 ad, too. Take it easy.
Joe
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg

Post Number: 1339
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Saturday, February 19, 2005 - 1:28 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Joe

We have noted before how Tumblety had a bizarre capacity for tacking himself on to different events, the Lincoln assassination, when he was arrested in 1865 on the suspicion of being Dr. Blackburn, and when released he wrote to the press from Kirkwood House, Washington, D.C., on June 17, 1865, the very place where at the time of the Lincoln assassination two months earlier the conspirators' plans called for George Atzerodt to assassinate Vice President Johnson. Then there are the reports that he was with Charles Guiteau three months before Guiteau assassinated President Garfield in 1881. Were all these matters total coincidences, or are they somehow a function of Tumblety's penchant for chicanery and associating with shady characters while bizarrely trying to get himself noticed? There's no doubt that Tumblety was a complex and devious character and that there is much more to be learned about him, whether he was "Jack" or not!

All the best

Chris

(Message edited by ChrisG on February 19, 2005)

(Message edited by ChrisG on February 19, 2005)
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Timothy B. Riordan
Police Constable
Username: Timothy

Post Number: 8
Registered: 1-2005
Posted on Sunday, February 20, 2005 - 6:34 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Joe,

I read that article and then promptly forgot it. Old age is a terrible thing. Anyway, seems like he was there after all.

I read somewhere that Tony Pastor is regarded as the "father of vaudeville."

Best,

Tim
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jeffrey Bloomfied
Chief Inspector
Username: Mayerling

Post Number: 575
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Sunday, February 20, 2005 - 7:30 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi all,

I was looking at the article from the Pittsburgh Daily Chronicle of November 27, 1888. It reminds me of the article about the story of the mad English doctor that was published in Chicago in 1895. There were some actual people (such as San Franciscan William Greer Harrison and Robert Lees) mentioned in that article. Has anybody looked up these names?

William H. Carr of the Fifth Avenue Hotel
James Pryor of the Fifth Avenue Hotel
Colonel James L. Southern of Chicago, "the well-known lawyer".

Jeff
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Joan Taylor
Unregistered guest
Posted on Sunday, February 20, 2005 - 8:14 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Tim Riordan,

Couldn't agree more!
People seem to be totally carried away with Tumblety. He strikes me as a bufoon.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Timothy B. Riordan
Sergeant
Username: Timothy

Post Number: 11
Registered: 1-2005
Posted on Friday, March 11, 2005 - 4:17 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I have done some additional research on the presence of the 13th NY Infantry at Fort Corcoran. While it is true that elements of the 13th were at Fort Corcoran in June and July 1861, that was not their only connection with the fort. As Joe pointed out the Civil War Archives site reports that they were part of the Defenses of Washington until March 1862 but it does not say where or how. There is a web site with a narrative of Robert Pierce’s experiences as a member of Company G, 13th NY Infantry (http://cpcug.org/user/jlacombe/rpierce.html). Company G did not leave Danville, NY until 1 November 1861 and a few days later, they went into camp at Fort Corcoran. They stayed there until April 1862. Thus, elements of the 13th Infantry were at Fort Corcoran throughout this period. It is possible that Tumblety went to Fort Corcoran as late as March 1862. Unfortunately, there is no way to narrow this down.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Malta Joe
Detective Sergeant
Username: Malta

Post Number: 88
Registered: 5-2004
Posted on Saturday, March 12, 2005 - 12:56 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I just took a look at that Civil War Archives web site I had recommended, and wow, they've totally changed their format since my Feb 19th posting. That posting of mine has been rendered totally obsolete now! Tim is right that the 13th NY Infantry was divided into different elements. I recall that the Civil War web site had displayed the general activity of the 13th Regiment, and they also tracked the specific movements of the Rochester Regiment. I think both Tim + my accounts were accurate, but we weren't looking at the same data. This stuff can get kind of tricky!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Malta Joe
Detective Sergeant
Username: Malta

Post Number: 92
Registered: 5-2004
Posted on Sunday, April 17, 2005 - 6:15 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

There may have been an indication in 1872 that Tumblety had anticipated the potential trouble that Dunham's mouth would cause him. Tumblety fired the first shots at Dunham toward the end of the quack's 2nd autobiography. Tumblety tried to present Dunham as a perjurer. The quack printed up a phony personal letter he supposedly received in Sept 1869 from a fellow-sufferer in the Old Capitol Prison named G.B. Lamar. Tumblety most likely wrote this, but here was the passage anyway:

"As to Stanton and Holt, they induced Conover (Dunham) to testify that I (Lamar) employed (Conover) and his associate to assassinate Mr. Lincoln, and that I got the money from (Confederate) President Davis in Richmond, and paid it to them in 1864; and they, no doubt, intended to hang me as they did that innocent woman Mrs. Surratt, but Conover relented and swore again that his first oath was a perjury."

Dunham claimed Tumblety had showed a lot of reluctance when the Colonel took one of Tumblety's autobiographies from the quack's Brooklyn office. It's almost like you can sense the friction growing between these two. They both seemed to know a lot of dirt about each other, but it was Tumblety who attacked first in public print in 1872.

On a different note, I've always supported the case that Mrs. Surratt was innocent. But it sure is a helpless feeling when your beliefs get Tumblety's approval!! I might have to re-examine the whole thing now!

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | User List | Help/Instructions | Register now! Administration

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.