|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 258
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 12:28 pm: | 
|
Gary,
Interestingly, the man in charge of the Ted murder case and who Bundy's girlfriend personally told of her suspicions was Bob Keppel. This being the same Bob Keppel who was in charge of the Green River Killer case and as we now know botched that up as well. This being the same Bob Keppel who is the author of "Riverman" and "Signature Killers" and likes to tell all and sundry how he is one of the worlds foremost experts in serial murder detection.
Apropos of nothing, of course. |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 440
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 3:11 pm: |
|
Hi Natalie and Alan
I do believe Jack was recognized by local prostitutes and was probably questioned by the police. If he could give a decent account of himself and didn't behave strangely in front of the police, he would have been allowed to go on his way. This is just my own supposition of course and I can't base it on anything tangible, save the fact that numerous serial killers are questioned and released by the police. In my own personal experience with criminals, I have seen far too many instances of putative criminals being allowed to go on their merry way after providing flimsy alibis provided by such 'unbiased' parties such as relatives and girlfriends.
Alan-I suspect Bundy fancied himself a good deal smarter than Bob Keppel and he may have been right.
You know I didn't even notice that Bob Keppel had written SIGNATURE KILLERS until your post prompted me to glance at the book. You might find it amusing that I have written question marks and marginalia pointing out internal inconsistencies in the book.
I don't mean to say the book has no value, some of the reasoning, however, does leave me puzzled.
All The Best
Gary |
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 160
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 6:50 pm: |
|
Dear Peter,
In your post of the 10th December you say:
'Do I think Tumblety's the best? No, but I don't think he was the least likely. The fact that the police followed him all the way to America does bring a bit of suspicion.,
In actual fact Tumblety was not pursued by police across the Atlantic - that is just a myth. The police officer concerned was already in North America having escorted a criminal back to Canada on I believe a fraud case. He then went down to New York on business the purpose of which has never been ascertained. The important thing to remember was this police officer was in North America before Tumblety. This must be the only chase in history where the pursuer has arrived at a destination before the pursuee!
all the best.
Bob
|
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 757
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 7:09 pm: |
|
Hi Natalie,
I believe psychopaths in general have proven to be intelligent above average, but I find that hard to apply on schizoid people -- not as a rule. Schizofrenia (if that is the likely issue here -- I myself don't want to bet on it) can all kinds of people, regardless of intelligence. I think really the word intelligence here is misleading; it would be more correct to use terms like "rational" or "irrational". I see too many contradictions in the Ripper's actions to label him as an emotionally stable person. Sometimes he shows some efforts to use his head, sometimes his risk-taking points at someone totally irrational. The risks he are taking tell me that he really wasn't that rational in his thinking. That indicates to me quite a confused character, although I believe he at some degree could get himself together enough to slip away into obscurity. So I don't see him as a psychopath, in control of the situation. I also think the exaggerated degree and nature of the mutilations points more to a disturbed individual than a planning, rational killer.
I don't dispute for a minute, that he was known by some in his environment or even among the prostitutes. I think that very well could be a possibility. But then we must also take the vast population and over-crowding in East End in consideration. If you were a loner, I think it would be quite easy to keep a low profile and blend into the crowd -- and you had to, in order to be Jack the Ripper.
I don't see any reason to dismiss the idea that he knew the area of the murders inside out, and lived in the center of it. To me that is quite a logical deduction. And I think his ability to make use of his knowledge of it, during his escapes, are somewhat exaggerated as far as intelligence is concerned. Whether mentally ill and confused or shrewd and cunning, I think his escapes makes it rather obvious that he was quite familiar with the area in question.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on December 10, 2003)
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 235
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 8:54 pm: |
|
Inspector Andrews arrived in North America from England with his prisoner (Roland Barnett) about a week and a half after Tumblety landed in New York (on Dec. 3rd). Research into the funding of Andrew's trip (by, I believe, Keith Skinner) suggests that Andrew's trip was on Scotland Yard business. Walter Dew later stated that Andrews worked on the Ripper investigation (although his name doesn't appear in the extant files). |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 758
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 11, 2003 - 7:52 am: |
|
Corrections:
Since it is no longer possible to edit the messages after a longer period of time, I have to make a correction to my latest post:
Line 2:
"...can hit all kinds of people, regardless of intelligence."
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
Natalie Severn
Detective Sergeant
Username: Severn
Post Number: 52
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 11, 2003 - 9:04 am: |
|
Hi Glenn---I"m going to reply to your post via the schizophrenic Jack thread if thats OK -Natalie. |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, December 11, 2003 - 5:27 am: |
|
Alan wrote:
"Fine, but he was proved wrong when the ripper performed far greater injuries on Kate Eddowes in what we know has to have been less than ten minutes."
We don't know that it had to have been less than ten minutes. We know that the officer who had the beat that Eddowes was killed within says he did everything he was supposed to have, which would have made it less than 10 minutes. If he actually hadn't he would have been strongly motivated to try to cover it up.
On the other hand I don't tend to trust what the doctors claimed about the killings either. I don't think there's any evidence to support the idea that Jack had any medical knowledge at all or even anatomical knowledge beyond what a typical person at the time would know. |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 759
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 11, 2003 - 12:21 pm: |
|
OK, Dan,
I hesitate to indulge any further in a discussion with you, because I don't want any of us to get Stephen on our tails here.
Just let me clarify a couple of things:
"You telling someone else that he obviously hasn't read the boards or else he wouldn't claim that Jack was intelligent is not saying it's OK to debate, it's trying to stop debate."
That is not what I said. I just expressed my frustration over that the same arguments, that has been dropped millions of times, are coming back all over again. There is no need for you to make a song and dance about it, just because you love to jump at my throat in a personal manner everytime I speak my opinion about things. I'd prefer we'd take it by e-mail for the sake of others here if that is going to continue. I am entitled to my points of view without you accusing me of claiming to have monopoly on the truth. I don't mind continue debating with you, but please lay off that personal tone in your messages.
It isn't that difficult to understand why one gets frustrated when the board discussions are getting too repetitious. And it isn't THAT hard to read some of the other threads that are already here. I did that for about three weeks before I even posted my first message. It wasn't meant as a personal grudge against Peter, I just thought this thread was going to be about Tumblety, not organized or disorganized killers.
"Then you would need to offer up better locations that were accessible, private and available. I don't remember anyone doing so other than just kind of assuming that there must have been some somewhere."
No, I don't need to, Dan. Hanbury Street is probably one of the least suitable murders sites I have ever seen, also compared to the other JtR sites. And also regarding the time of day. I can admit that the other sites are not that easy to replace with better ones, due to the environmental context (although I still see them as high-risk spots), but the yard in Hanbury Street is an extreme situation, and NOT a smart location for a murder site and for the mutilation of the victim. If he at least could have chosen do to it in the middle of the night, but early in the morning -- when the people in the neighbourhood are off to work or getting out of bed...? Come on, Dan. You can't say that Hanbury Street was chosen wisely!
"A shizophrenic or disorganized person is less likely to even worry about resistance."
I claim the right to disagree with you, and I have no idea from where you've got this notion. To not wanting someone to resist is a natural instinct of self-preservation and has nothing to do with intelligence. Animals can feel it and so can most of us, intelligent or not. It is an instinct, nothing else. To call that intelligent is really to stretch the expression beyond recognicion. And once again, Dan, a schizofrenic or someone mentally unstable can very well use his head once in a while. I have constantly putting this forward to you, but you continue to disregard it. I DON'T see the Ripper as a raving lunatic!
"It's unclear because you are taking the smart and sane thing to do in the situation (get away as soon as possible so you don't get caught) and trying to portray it as something someone of below average intelligence / confidence / mental stability would do."
Yes, that's right. Although, I don't see what is so smart about it. This is a natural instinct too. Why are you so absolutely sure of that an insane person would just stay on the spot and wait to get caught? I don't see this as an intelligent feature at all. Yes, he managed to avoid the coppers. But if he knew the area like his inner pocket and the police lacked sufficient means to track him or analyse the crime scene evidence (as we are able to today), I don't see this a vast achievement. That is totally over-rated as far as I am concerned.
"If they actually spoke for themselves there wouldn't be differing opinions about them."
Note that I wrote "... but personally I believe...". It was my opinion, and I am entitled to it.
"Which is what organized serial killers do: selectively choose from a random group of victims, based upon their vulnerability and any personal preference (such as female versus male, adult versus child, and potentially others)."
Not just organized ones, Dan. Why would a disorganized or mixed killer choose a more difficult target than any other and not litsen to his instincts to choose the more vulnerable one? Why do you continue to assume that a mentally unstable killer have to be a raving lunatic going completely berzerk, without one single thought in his head? I don't get it. You seem to think that everything is a sign of intelligence -- well, you are free to do so. Don't let me stop you...
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
Peter Sipka
Detective Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 89
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 12, 2003 - 1:30 am: |
|
Gary,
I believe Jack was cunning and street smart.
Exactly, doesn't that involve intelligence? Smart and intelligence-same thing.
His behavior is antithetical to that of a serial killer who, logic dictates, would avoid the glare of publicity for obvious reasons.
Why would he avoid publicity? It does make sense that he could have wanted some.
Alan,
Regarding Dr. Phillips, I had stated that Dr. Phillips said he could not have performed those injuries.
You stated:
Fine, but he was proved wrong when the ripper performed far greater injuries on Kate Eddowes in what we know has to have been less than ten minutes. Therefore this statement cannot be relied upon as evidence.
I really don't think Dr. Phillips could be proved wrong on his own opinion on himself of the Chapman murder. Phillips stated that he himself could not have performed them. How could you possibly prove that wrong?
Regarding the Zodiac killer, Robert Graysmith was the one who took it seriously and he studied the case. I accidentally labeled him as an officer. Thanks for the correction.
Glenn, Dan
Glenn's statement:
That is just one view on the matter. His testimony has since been questioned and there was no over-all support for that the Ripper would have medical knowledge. But more importantly: look at the injuries on Eddowes. Here we see very little signs on skills from someone of a medical profession. She is mostly ripped apart quite savagely, and some organs were destroyed with the knife, the kidney parted in half etc. Quite a sloppy achievement, if you ask me. I believe -- whatever the conditions on the site -- that a doctor would have done a neater job with the knife. It doesn’t exclude someone with a fair, basic anatomical knowledge, though, but a doctor... hardly.
Dan's statement:
On the other hand I don't tend to trust what the doctors claimed about the killings either. I don't think there's any evidence to support the idea that Jack had any medical knowledge at all or even anatomical knowledge beyond what a typical person at the time would know.
Both Dr. Phillips and Dr. Brown "thought they could detect a great deal of expertise, both anatomical knowledge and surgical skill, in the mutilations" of Chapman and Eddowes.
(The Complete History of Jack the Ripper-Philip Sudgen)
Remember, JTR did all this in the dark and with great speed. Not to mention, the amount of things he was risking.
"Nick (Warren) believes that the Ripper's attempt to separate the vertebrae of Annie Chapman's neck and his pelvic dissection of this victim indicate anatomical knowledge. He believes, too, that the removal of the left kidney in the case of Kate Eddowes evidenced definite anatomical knowledge and surgical skill. For it required both to extract the organ, as the Ripper did, through the vascular pedicle from the front. It lay embedded in fat, behind the peritoneum and overlain by the stomach, spleen, colon and jejunum."
(The Complete History of Jack the Ripper-Philip Sudgen)
Regarding the letters, yes he did want to be in the spotlight and I think he would have enjoyed writing the letters and getting away with it. But I don't think he wanted to risk himself even more. That would be getting too cocky.
I don't see any reason for them to expand this risk any further by letting the customer decide the spot.
What if the prostitutes had felt comfortable with JTR after a long conversation? He did manipulate them a bit. I'm sure they would have then done what he asked. I'm sure he asked nicely.
Regarding my statement on the planning, you said:
Oh really? I am not so sure about that. And I would hardly call that planning anyway. That decision could just as well be made out of an urge or instinct.
There were maybe six killings at the most-not a big number. Especially compared to other serial killers. Anyway, each murder had to be something "special." Do you think he left his house not knowing what his plan was for the night? Especially, such insane and extensive mutilations?
I can only quote Gary here, Peter (if I may, Gary!): "I would expect to find him living in the general district he hunted within. This would give him a fair knowledge of the backstreets and alleys into which he could disappear." And I believe a great deal of people in East End knew the police beats to a fair degree -- especially those who were customers of the prostitutes. And not to forget -- I think it is fair to assume, that the prostitutes themselves knew the police beats (for the sake of their own profession). So I don't think that detail would have to indicate some sort of brain-storming on Jack's part. And as Gary says, it is quite possible for someone like JTR to calculate at some point; but it doesn’t have to point at an intelligent individual, just someone who knew the conditions in the neighborhood where he lived and who wasn't that concerned about the risks.
What would the residents ever gain off this? Nothing. They were irrelevant to the majority of residents. That is probably why they didn't pay any attention at all to those beats. Unless...you were JTR. Also, I'm sure they changed them up a bit.
if we are looking at an intelligent killer, why did he set himself in that vulnerable position that was the case in Hanbury Street?
That's the point. He wanted to take the risk and he was smart in getting away with it.
Dan
We don't know that it had to have been less than ten minutes. We know that the officer who had the beat that Eddowes was killed within says he did everything he was supposed to have, which would have made it less than 10 minutes. If he actually hadn't he would have been strongly motivated to try to cover it up.
Unfortunately, that may have been the case and that is obviously not any help to us all.
Which officers or witness' can we trust?
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 526
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 12, 2003 - 5:55 am: |
|
Hi All,
There only has to be one clear sign of Jack being organised, or mixed, to put a big dent in the disorganised theory. A disorganised killer would not be able to make his crimes look organised by design, whereas an organised killer could, depending on the degree of his intelligence and cunning, make them look as disorganised to the world as he wished them to look.
For me, one of the clearest signs that Jack was organised is the fact that in just a few weeks he managed to graduate from Nichols to Eddowes, while the streets and the presses went from cool to red hot, taking away more daring trophies from each new victim, then, after a longer cooling-off period than previously (although this could have been for an unavoidable reason such as illness), found Kelly. The fact that he was then able to do anything and everything that his little black heart could have wished for, in his wildest dreams and in everyone else’s worst nightmares, is particularly striking IMHO.
And of course, he got away with it all.
Have a great weekend all.
Love,
Caz
|
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 503
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 12, 2003 - 8:47 am: |
|
This is Tumblety...right?
Confused
Monty
|
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 765
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 12, 2003 - 9:01 am: |
|
Hi Peter,
"Both Dr. Phillips and Dr. Brown "thought they could detect a great deal of expertise, both anatomical knowledge and surgical skill, in the mutilations" of Chapman and Eddowes."
Anatomical knowledge -- yes. But the thing about the surgical skills there are mixed opinions about. It hasn't been established, and that point has been critized just as much as it has been put forward. Here I think it is a matter of opinion. I don't think the mutilations on Eddowes suggests a doctor or someone with medical skills -- far from it. And Nick Warrens opinion hasn't been left untouched by criticism either, although he is an authority on the matter.
"There were maybe six killings at the most-not a big number. Especially compared to other serial killers. Anyway, each murder had to be something "special."
Firstly, we don't really know how Ripper victims there really were. Secondly, that each murder had to be special is just speculation, Peter. I think we should be careful not reading to much into them. There is no evidence on the crime scenes that suggests planning at all, as far as I am concerned.
"Do you think he left his house not knowing what his plan was for the night? Especially, such insane and extensive mutilations?"
Yes, I think it is a possibility. I don't think carrying knives, for example, was that uncommon in East End. I believe the murders were done when the instincts became too strong to resist.
"What would the residents ever gain off this? Nothing. They were irrelevant to the majority of residents. That is probably why they didn't pay any attention at all to those beats. Unless...you were JTR."
I am sorry, I was a bit careless here. Of course I meant that the police beats were known to those who had problems with the law, and not just characters like JtR. I can give you an number of groups: prostitutes, thieves, robbers, vagrants etc. Of course, these do not represent a majority of the inhabitants of East End -- God forbid -- but I think they were quite many. And it is indeed very likely that the police changed their beats once in a while, but those who were concerned with had to learn the new beats as well. And as I stated earlier: even if the Ripper didn't for some reason know the police beats, victims most certainly did!
"That's the point. He wanted to take the risk and he was smart in getting away with it."
Nono, Peter. Here I really must object. A psychopath may think his clever to pull things off that would represent a challenge for them. But Hanbury Street would be just stupid for such a killer. Hanbury Street is to me the strongest indication on that we are NOT dealing with someone that "intelligent". If I should point at a sign of the opposite, I would say the same thing as Caz. But Hanbury Street is the ultimate indication of him not being that smart; but it definitely shows that he was confused at the time and didn't manage to calculate his risks correctly.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 766
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 12, 2003 - 9:04 am: |
|
I agree with Monty here (I can understand his confusion).
As I said in my last post, this thread has lost Tumblety a bit. Shall we move the discussion to another thread (unless we can find a way to insert him into our discussions)?
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
Erin Sigler
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rapunzel676
Post Number: 135
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 13, 2003 - 4:30 pm: |
|
Exactly, doesn't that involve intelligence? Smart and intelligence-same thing.
I beg to differ, Peter. "Smart" and "street-smart" are hardly the same thing. Do you honestly believe Joe the Pimp is on the same intellectual level, as, say, a professor at Harvard? This is why we have two separate designations: "Street-smart" and "book-smart." Although the two may occur in the same individual, they are not the same and should not be lumped together under the catch-all term of "intelligent."
Regarding the Zodiac killer, Robert Graysmith was the one who took it seriously and he studied the case.
Robert Graysmith was a cartoonist for the San Francisco Chronicle. And if you're relying solely on him for your information on the Zodiac, you're sadly misinformed, because most serious Zodiac researchers know Graysmith is one of the least reliable sources of information about the case, given his habit of playing fast and loose with the facts. Furthermore, he was not the only individual to take the case seriously; a multi-jurisdictional task force was created with the specific intent of hunting the killer. I'd say a good number of police agencies were--and still are--have taken this case quite seriously.
Why would he avoid publicity? It does make sense that he could have wanted some.
Why? Because you say so? Believe it or not, not every serial killer writes to the press. We know about the ones who do because there truly aren't that many. And it's particularly uncommon among the kind of killer I believe Jack to have been.
Phillips stated that he himself could not have performed them. How could you possibly prove that wrong?
You can't prove a negative, Peter, you should know that. I think his statement could also be interpreted that as a doctor--someone accustomed to making clean, orderly and careful cuts--he could not perform the mutilations in such a short time. Any old hack with even the most basic knowledge of anatomy and sharp implement could do the same job. I took an anatomy class, and so long as the victim was dead already and I had no moral objection to doing so, I could probably do a fair job of tearing someone's organs out as well. The skill isn't in the ripping, it's in the technique, and a doctor with this sort of "technique" would have been laughed out of the operating room.
Both Dr. Phillips and Dr. Brown "thought they could detect a great deal of expertise, both anatomical knowledge and surgical skill, in the mutilations" of Chapman and Eddowes.
Let's clarify this a bit, shall we? If you're going to rely on Sugden as your sole source of information, you should at least quote him in full. Following his statement on Dr. Brown's opinion regarding surgical skill, Sugden is quick to point out that "Brown did not believe, however, that the degree of knowledge and skill displayed would only have been possessed by a medical man. A slaughterman, for example, would have known enough to have inflicted the injuries," (245). He goes on to say that while Drs. Sequeria and Saunders more or less "endorsing Brown," Sequeria was of the opinion that the killer was not "possessed of 'great anatomical skill." He clarified his position in a later interview with the Star, where he stated, in response to a reporter's inquiry as to whether or not an "'expert'" had performed the mutilations, "'No, not an expert,' explained Sequeira, 'but by a man who was not altogether ignorant of the use of knife," (245). Phillips, too, qualified his opinion, indicating "'that the murder could have been committed by a person who had been a hunter, a butcher, a slaughterman, as well as a student in surgery or a properly qualified surgeon,'" (246). Thus, according to Sugden, "although the murder might have been committed by a qualified surgeon the degree of expertise actually displayed could also have been possessed by a hunter, butcher, slaughterman or medical student," (247). Finally, "Phillips saw less evidence of medical expertise in the Eddowes murder than in that of Annie Chapman and for this he was inclined to the belief that these crimes had been done by different men," (247).
What if the prostitutes had felt comfortable with JTR after a long conversation? He did manipulate them a bit. I'm sure they would have then done what he asked. I'm sure he asked nicely.
A long conversation? Ever met a prostitute, Peter? They don't seem inclined to stand there shooting the breeze with Joe Schmoo when there's money to be made and the night's a-wasting. Where do you see any attempt at manipulation here? These women were starving and desperate. Sure, he might have had a place in mind, but your support for such an argument is pretty weak. Based on my own research I don't think this kind of killer would have tried to take the lead under the circumstances. He doesn't strike me as a guy with a whole lot of social skills. Not that it would have taken much to convince the East End pros, of course--a handful of pennies would have been enough for them.
What would the residents ever gain off this? Nothing. They were irrelevant to the majority of residents. That is probably why they didn't pay any attention at all to those beats. Unless...you were JTR. Also, I'm sure they changed them up a bit.
Do you think serial killers were the only criminals at work in Whitechapel? And do you have any evidence that the police beats were rotated? If so, please share it with us.
That's the point. He wanted to take the risk and he was smart in getting away with it.
Show me how this demonstrates anything beyond street-level cunning and knowledge of the local geography. Charles Cross couldn't just walk into the nearest phone booth and dial 911, then wait around for the cops to arrive. Keep in mind, also, that there was not a great deal of lighting, and that the cops were on foot. As far as Hanbury Street goes, let's use a little common sense, here. Does it strike you as the most opportune location for committing a murder in broad daylight? Organized serial killers, as you would have Jack be, are masterful opportunists. They're going to size the victim and determine what the best location is for them, under the circumstances. Even the most intelligent, organized serial killers did not take such risks. All but one of Zodiac's murders were committed in dark, isolated spots that presented easy avenues of escape. And in the one murder not committed under such circumstances, he escaped through sheer luck, not his own cunning. Same with Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy (who used his own home!), and even the serial killer with the highest IQ on record, Ed Kemper, made sure his victim was unconscious before driving through the guard gates at the university where his mother worked. Risk-takers, yes, but not idiots. Now, a disorganized, schizoid personality (Ed Gein, for instance, who left his final victim hanging up in his barn for the cops to see and made very little effort to avoid detection) might choose the Hanbury Street location as the ideal place to commit a murder, don't you think?  |
Frank van Oploo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Franko
Post Number: 61
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 14, 2003 - 5:40 pm: |
|
Hi erin & Glenn,
On the 'Sorting the clues' thread I have posted some comments for you, which don't have a special bearing on Tumblety, but are comments on your posts here.
Hope to see you there,
Frank |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 776
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 14, 2003 - 7:51 pm: |
|
Peter,
Just for clarification, concerning my post on Friday, December 12, 2003 - 9:01 am (as a result of bad proof-reading on my part):
"And it is indeed very likely that the police changed their beats once in a while, but those who were concerned with had to learn the new beats as well."
Should say:
"...but for those concerned it was probably important to learn the new beats as well."
"Firstly, we don't really know how Ripper victims there really were."
Should say:
Firstly, we don't really know how many Ripper victims there really were.
"...even if the Ripper didn't for some reason know the police beats, victims most certainly did!"
Should say:
"... his victims [that is, the prostitute women] most certainly did!
-------------------------------
OK, Frank. I'll pop in!
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
Peter Sipka
Detective Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 93
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 15, 2003 - 1:00 am: |
|
Glenn,
There is no evidence on the crime scenes that suggests planning at all, as far as I am concerned.
This is not planning?
Going in middle of the night, dressed in clothes that would reduce detection if blood got on them, speaking with a prostitute, killing her while avoiding those annoying and constant police beat times?
Yes, we have talked about this before.
even if the Ripper didn't for some reason know the police beats, victims most certainly did!
Was prostitution illegal back then?
But Hanbury Street is the ultimate indication of him not being that smart
Intelligent people make mistakes. We all make mistakes. Many smart serial killers have been caught by the police on accident. So, just because of one possible mistake, I don't think we should automatically label Jack the Ripper as "not smart"
|
Peter Sipka
Detective Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 94
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 15, 2003 - 1:25 am: |
|
Erin
Do you honestly believe Joe the Pimp is on the same intellectual level, as, say, a professor at Harvard?
Both aspects show intelligence and that is what I am trying to get at. I'm just saying that JTR could have very well been one of them. What most clearly stands out is street smarts and I really don't think a psychopath or a mentally unstable person like, let's say, Kosminski would possess that trait.
most serious Zodiac researchers know Graysmith is one of the least reliable sources of information about the case
That was my first time really looking into that area. I never knew that Graysmith was such a terrible source because I have never studied that field before.
Me: Why would he avoid publicity? It does make sense that he could have wanted some.
Erin: Why? Because you say so? Believe it or not, not every serial killer writes to the press. We know about the ones who do because there truly aren't that many. And it's particularly uncommon among the kind of killer I believe Jack to have been.
No, it's not because I say so. It is because I think so. I never forced you or anybody else to follow exactly what I say. I was not stating that as fact and I said that because I felt the area in which he killed his victims and the way he killed them, to me, shows some sort of want of recognition.
Regarding the Phillips statement:
I think his statement could also be interpreted that as a doctor--someone accustomed to making clean, orderly and careful cuts--he could not perform the mutilations in such a short time.
Phillips said that he could not have performed those mutilations-he was a doctor. What does that tell you?
Phillips, too, qualified his opinion, indicating "'that the murder could have been committed by a person who had been a hunter, a butcher, a slaughterman, as well as a student in surgery or a properly qualified surgeon,'"
Okay, I will then argue with both you and the doctors. I am not an expert here, but please inform me how a man who's profession requires cutting up animals, can possibly know how to cut up a woman?
A long conversation? Ever met a prostitute, Peter? They don't seem inclined to stand there shooting the breeze with Joe Schmoo when there's money to be made and the night's a-wasting.
Have you met a prostitute? When I have seen them on the streets I usually see them like any other human being would be doing-talking. Who knows what they would be talking about, but many of the witness' in the JTR case did see conversating going on.
And do you have any evidence that the police beats were rotated?
Unfortunately, I have no evidence. Do you have evidence that they didn't rotate. I was just assuming. It really does make enough sense for them to rotate a little bit unless of course they were a bunch of morons.
Even the most intelligent, organized serial killers did not take such risks.
Do serial killers not make mistakes? Are they perfect? Maybe that was JTR's plan. If he was streets smart, which I believe you think he was, he would have taken that risk easily or like I said before, it could have been a simple mistake. We all make mistakes.
|
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 780
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 15, 2003 - 8:42 am: |
|
Peter,
I'll give you my reply here, but if this discussion is going to continue you are welcome to the Schizofrenic Jack thread, because this has nothing to do with Tumblety, as I see it.
"This is not planning?
Going in middle of the night, dressed in clothes that would reduce detection if blood got on them, speaking with a prostitute, killing her while avoiding those annoying and constant police beat times?
Yes, we have talked about this before."
Yes, indeed we have, Peter. So therefore I won't repeat myself. I think I have given you reasonable explanations why I think you are misreading some of the circumstances.
Just a couple of pointers: how do you know that he was "dressed in clothes that would reduce detection if blood got on them" -- there are no factual basis for this, I believe? Where did you get this from?
"Was prostitution illegal back then?"
No, not prostitution as a crime in itself, but that is not the point.
1) If you as a prostitute would want any customers and keep them, it wouldn't be acceptable to have the coppers looking over your shoulder during the act. If you were a customer, would you like the services to be performed so that the police could see you?
2) Prostitution was not a ground for being picked up by the police, but loitering was, and this was the most common way for the police to nail the prostitutes and other characters that was strolling around without a clear purpose or a regular job.
3) The prostitutes attracted other criminal groups of people and other vagrants, and therefore they were under constant observation.
The prostitutes did NOT want any interfering from the police in their work. I don't think it is that hard to understand, Peter, that they would loose customer if they didn't manage to avoid the police.
"Intelligent people make mistakes. We all make mistakes. Many smart serial killers have been caught by the police on accident. So, just because of one possible mistake, I don't think we should automatically label Jack the Ripper as "not smart"
Oh please, Peter. You can't compare Hanbury Street -- a picked out murder site -- with stumbling over an occasional police officer. Hanbury Street was a complete suicide mission and if the Ripper was a clever psychopath, that site and time of day for the deed would never have come up. That is not even street smart -- just plain irrational behaviour.
"Okay, I will then argue with both you and the doctors. I am not an expert here, but please inform me how a man who's profession requires cutting up animals, can possibly know how to cut up a woman?"
Peter, to know how to cut up a woman -- that is, to know where the organs are seated -- you only need anatomical knowledge and/or curiousity about the human body. You didn't need to be a doctor. Then, as far as cutting itself is concerned, he could have gotten his handiness with a knife from a dozen of former professions.
"When I have seen them on the streets I usually see them like any other human being would be doing-talking. Who knows what they would be talking about, but many of the witness' in the JTR case did see conversating going on."
Firstly, when you are coming in contact with a prostitute there is no time for chit chat -- that is why he didn't need to be persuasive -- and secondly, we can't really, apart from the man seen by Elizabeth Long, know that any of these persons was Jack the Ripper. And why would it be impossible for the Ripper (if he was not a sane person) to indulge in a smaller conversation? They hardly discussed Immanuel Kant, and during these transactions it was mainly the prostitutes that did the talking. All you had to do as a customer was to say "Yes, OK" and show you had the money.
You are making too much big a deal out of nothing, Peter. And once again, your description of the actions of a mentally unstable killer is still based on a complete degenerate or a raving lunatic. That is NOT the case, Peter. Even if you are a more or less schizoid person, you CAN very much interact with people to a certain degree -- and certainly enough to make a sexual transaction go through. The prostitutes were NOT interested in intellectual discussions on the street.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, December 13, 2003 - 9:32 am: |
|
Glenn wrote:
"That is not what I said."
Whatever. The post is still there for people to read.
"And it isn't THAT hard to read some of the other threads that are already here."
Why do you assume he didn't read the boards? I've read the boards for longer than you've been on them, and I still say that Jack was highly rational and intelligent. That fact that he said Jack was intelligent doesn't mean he hasn't read the boards.
This whole question about whether he read the boards or not never should have come up if you weren't assuming that his opinion that Jack was intelligent means he's not as well read as you.
"Come on, Dan. You can't say that Hanbury Street was chosen wisely! "
I can and I do. That's probably the second best most secluded and protected site after MJK's residence. It's slightly less secluded than the room but with an extra escape route (a short fence is no obstacle at all to a reasonably fit person), so one could even make the argument that it was the best location of all the canonical killings. It's ridiculous to just say that someone smart would have found someplace better when it already has almost everything a killer would want.
Frankly, to me Jack had a more rational grasp of reality of the conditions in the area than you do.
"To not wanting someone to resist is a natural instinct of self-preservation and has nothing to do with intelligence. "
Delusionary people don't necessarily see reality clear enough to be able to trust their self-preservation instincts. The more they are concerned with self-preservation and accurately judge risks, the more rational they are. You can't just label every indication that he could think clearly as "instinct" to try to get around the fact that it shows rational ability.
Not to mention that successfully killing in a way that minimizes resistance takes a whole level of organized ability beyond just realizing that resistance is bad and should be avoided. He had his kills just about perfected, I don't see how an irrational person could have just stumbled upon that.
"And once again, Dan, a schizofrenic or someone mentally unstable can very well use his head once in a while. I have constantly putting this forward to you, but you continue to disregard it."
I don't disregard it, it just doesn't prove your case at all. We are talking about weighing things to determine if someone is irrational or rational. The fact that sometimes a schizophrenic individual acts rational doesn't mean that evidence that a person is rational means they are schizophrenic. It's like arguing that someone is male because they have long hair and wear dresses because sometimes males do that too.
"Why are you so absolutely sure of that an insane person would just stay on the spot and wait to get caught?"
I'm not saying that's an absolute. I have never said that. I'm saying that's more what disorganized killers do. Escaping and not talking about your crimes is more organized and rational. It's a sliding scale.
"Why would a disorganized or mixed killer choose a more difficult target than any other and not litsen to his instincts to choose the more vulnerable one?"
Because disorganized killers are less likely to make rational decisions. Choosing a vulnerable one is an organized trait. Repeatedly choosing vulnerable ones of the same type is an extremely organized trait.
"Why do you continue to assume that a mentally unstable killer have to be a raving lunatic going completely berzerk, without one single thought in his head? "
I don't assume that, Glenn. Again, it's a sliding scale. You seem to be trying to weigh rational versus irrational by ignoring the irrational end of the scale and taking anything that might be construed as not 100% logical and using it to assume that Jack wasn't intelligent. It's like trying to decide whether something is black or white and then picking anything with any gray in it whatsoever and calling that black because it's darker than pure white would be.
Bundy made a lot of mistakes that weren't too bright in retrospect (giving potential victims his real name sure ranks right up there), but still he's the shining example of an intelligent, organized killer. The facts in the Jack the Ripper case look to clearly point toward that end of the scale. |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, December 13, 2003 - 9:38 am: |
|
Glenn wrote:
"Shall we move the discussion to another thread"
Good point. Probably the schizophrenic or a profiling thread would be better.
|
Bullwinkle
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 16, 2003 - 10:41 am: |
|
"We don't know that it had to have been less than ten minutes. We know that the officer who had the beat that Eddowes was killed within says he did everything he was supposed to have, which would have made it less than 10 minutes. If he actually hadn't he would have been strongly motivated to try to cover it up."
>>From a logical standpoint, this is like saying that perhaps Tony Blair is a pedophile, and if he is, then we ought to watch out for him. The problem is that we don't have any information that he is. In the same sense, we don't have any information that the constable missed his beat that night. He apparently was in at least approximately the right place at the right time, or at least no significant mention was made that maybe he wasn't. Once again, Mr. Norder invites his readers to take his hand and leap majestically into the oblivion of dissociation with him. How dark the intended relationship, how futile its result.
The evidence is the evidence.
Bullwinkle
|
M.Mc.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, March 25, 2004 - 10:02 am: |
|
The wild card suspect! I am still trying to find a suspect for JTR that stands out more than others do. This guy is one of the main 3 I suspect. Even though the man was gay he hated women, mostly hookers. Plus the fact he had a stash of female body parts is a major clue. Gay, straight or otherwise, any man who hated women as much as this man did cannot be ruled out as JTR. His sexual habits are moot really when you look at how much he hated women and hookers. I'm not totally sold on him as being JTR but he is high on my list. I give him a 8 on a scale of 10. |
Paul Jackson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 86
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, March 27, 2004 - 2:10 pm: |
|
Hi All,
M.MC...I have to disagree with you on Tumblety for one reason. He was 6 ft. tall or better.
That was extremely tall for men in 1888. None of the alleged witnesses report seeing anyone taller than 5'9, except for "pipeman"...and he was probably just standing there lighting his pipe. On the surface, Tumblety does seem like a good suspect, but the height issue is one that cant be overlooked. Best Regards.
Paul |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1379
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 27, 2004 - 6:57 pm: |
|
I agree with Paul.
Although witness descriptions usually are problematic as parameters, at least some of them would have noted and mentioned someone that tall.
Regarding his alleged hatred of women argument, it is a good indicator but hardly conclusive enough in order to suspect an individual of murder. Furthermore, even though he hated women, we have no documentation clearly showing he was a violent man.
The jars with female body parts are not verified as a true fact, but is merely a tale, coming from an oral source. It could just as well be whopping fib and proves nothing. We have no evidence whatsoever that those ever existed.
The only things I find interesting regarding Tumblety and JtR, is his alleged connection with the Lodger story, and also the fact that the police for some reasons showed a great deal of interest in him. Besides that, most of his candidacy is all based on speculations unsupported by facts. But I wouldn't rule him out altogether, of course.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, March 27, 2004 - 11:09 pm: |
|
Whatsup Glen,
We have discussed Tumblety before and I posted a message to you under the three best suspects threrad but it got archived under March 15 Because I am an unregisterd guest sometimes my post get archived and they are never on the main page. I know this is my fault If you would care to read it I would be interested in your opinion.
Tumblety's height has always been good argument against him but there are many factors that could lead someone to misjudge height. There has been some witnesses who have reported a tall stranger.
The man with the pipe across the street from stride was described as tall and if I am not mistaken there was a report of a tall Irish man asking for lusk's address.
I find the source of the Tumblety story about wombs in jars and a hattred of women brought on by a failed marriage to be more reliable then most ripper witnesses.
Your last points about the lodger and the police being interested are dead on but I would add one more. The timeline is perfect. He enters England at the right time for the murders to start and he flees at the right time for the murders to stop.
Your friend,CB |
ex PFC Wintergreen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, February 14, 2005 - 11:17 pm: |
|
I would love to believe Tumblety was Jack the Ripper. And for a while I did.
The quirky, chameleonic charlatan is a favourable image to me and to combine that with the romanticised evil stalking image of Jack the Ripper makes for a delicious character profile.
But there are too many points against it, the biggest being that all the witnesses who saw Jack the Ripper didn't see Tumblety. They saw a man at five foot seven and in his thirties. This wasn't just from one witness but from all, the same mistakes couldn't be made that many times. Tumblety was too tall and in 1888 he was fifty five years old.
So if Tumblety the misogynistic, merchant of malpractice was capable of slaughtering prostitutes, then it was a different set of prostitutes nobody heard about.
At the same time he is the best suspect yet, not in terms of the most likely but in the terms of being the most captivating. In a movie about his life you could even imagine John Cleese playing him. |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 6:46 pm: |
|
Hi Wintergreen,
There is some doubt about just how tall Tumblety was. I have read any were from 5'11 to close to 6'4 Maybe you have that information. The height and age of Tumblety are good arguments against him being the ripper. however, we have so few witnesses and it is possible that no one really saw the ripper. Anderson and swanson claimed that only one person got a good look at the killer. There has been great debate on just who that witness was. Inspector Abberline claimed that no one ever got a good look at the ripper. I do not feel they put a great deal of stock in any of the witness except for the witness who identified Kosminski. [Anderson and Swanson's witness.] and he made the identification two years after the ripper murders. Remember the people who came forward were identifieng the unfortunate not the ripper. For example they were claiming that indeed they saw Eddowes and then they would describe the last man that they saw with her. Sometmes they would Identifiy the woman by clothing. Woman dressed very similiar in 1888.It was dark and some of the witnesses had just left a pub. So it is quite possible that a misidentification of the victim could have been made. The only witnesses that I can think of that actually claimed they knew the unfortunate was Mary Cox who lived next door to Kelly and George Hutchinson who claimed that he knew Kelly.
Tumblety is one of the best suspect we have because he is one of the few suspects put forward that were actualy suspected at the time of the murders. Sickert was not suspected at the time of the murders. Druitt was not put forth untill his body was found on newyears eve. Kosminski was not suspected untill he was identified some time after the murders. Chapman was not suspected untill he was arrested for murder in 1903. Maybrick was never suspected untill his diary surfaced. I feel this is important because the murders stopped. Of course Druitt is the exeption because he commited suicide so soon after the Kelly murder and he may have been able to go undetected untill he killed himself. Tumblety put forth by Littlechild, Druitt put forth by Mcnaughten and Kosminski put forth by Swanson and Anderson are probably the three best suspects. Kosminski being the least likely in my oppinion. Simply because the identification came so long after the murders stopped. The witness that came forward was also asked to identify another man not long after he identified Kosminski. I do not believe that Anderson and swanson cared much for Monroe [Charles Warrens replacment.] and Macnaughten and they were not prepared to accept the conclusion that was in my oppinon generally accepted at the time that Druitt was the ripper. Special patrols to the eastend stood down around six weeks after the Kelly murder around the time that Druitt's body washed up.Tumblety arrived in Newyork in early December. [Followed by Scotlandyard.] and this to could be a reason why patrols stood down.
I agree the Tumblety Story is interesting and is a far better story then the various versions of the royal conspiracy they keep producing. Think about it the civil war. The lincoln assasination and Jack the ripper all in one movie. Nobody would believe it.
Your friend,CB |
Chuk Yager
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, March 21, 2005 - 10:17 am: |
|
Hi ripperologists,
In between my medical studies I am having a crack at this case.The ripper case should have a warning sign - HIGHLY ADDICTIVE.One thing I believe , this Tumblety is for real and fits the bill more than the rest.It is a shame there is no conclusive evidence about the female body parts, as this would be damming evidence.These things stand out for mine:
+ the police were hunting him and thought it important enough to pay for detectives to pursue him overseas.They obviusly thought him important.
+ this man evaded capture fron UK and US police. The ripper evaded capture aswell.He knew how to change his identity as the ripper did from his varying witness discriptions.
+ He was twisted sexually - a huge point
+ he alledgedly hated women and whores and kept a collection of wombs - I wish this could be proved somehow.
One thing is for sure , his disposition is similar to Maybrick's. They would have been dynamite had they been in cahoots. Something to ponder.
All the best - Chuk. |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 - 1:24 am: |
|
Hi Chuk,
I agree the detectives obviously though that Tumblety was a man of interest. I assume that they did not pull his name out of a hat. They had to have some reason to question him but they questioned a lot of people. The stories are interesting but lets just state what we know to be true.
1. The murders started soon after Tumbletys arrival.
2. The murders stoped after Tumblety fled London.
3. Tumblety was suspected at the time of the murders.
4. Tumblety was questioned.
5. Tumblety fled London after being questioned.
6. Tumblety was pursued to NewYork.
7. Tumblety fled Newyork
That is breaking down the facts to there simple form and those seven simple facts alone make him a great suspect.
I have a hard time believing that all the researchers who have studied this case seem to have overlooked Tumblety untill 1993. It seems that Tumblety even managed to evade modern reasearch as well. He may have been the most infamous suspect world wide. His name was printed in connection with the murders and yet nothing appeared in the British press. How his name was kept from them is another mystery. Good research is being done now concerning Tumblety and I have no doubt that Reasearchers like Malta Joe will some day proove Tumblety's inocence or help build the case against him. If Tumblety was the ripper I doubt that the WC murders would have been his first. He may have been killing for years and connecting him or placing him at the scene of other murders may be damming.
The Fenian connection is interesting. Douglaus Browne claimed that he saw documents indicating that Macnaughten had connected the ripper with the leader of an assasination plot of Mr. Balfour. Tumblety was an Irish sympathiser and most likely a fenian so he may fit the bill nicely. I am taken back by the fact that Druitt was Macnaughten's preferd suspect. A Tumblety Druitt connection? something to ponder.
There is food for thought concerning the idea that there was two people involved with the murders. The police offerd a pardon for anyone with knowledge concerning the Kelly murder. The interesting thing to me is that the police offerd a pardon not a reward. Assuming that they were not planning on pardoning the ripper then they may have thought that more then one person was involved. After the Double event I know that the detectives considerd the possibility.
Tumblety and Maybrick? I am not sure but I think that Tumblety had home in Liverpool.
Your friend,CB |
Chuk Yager
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, April 04, 2005 - 1:53 pm: |
|
Hi CB,
My name is not really Chuck Yager, but Jason Smith. I was told by the moderator that it resembles a registered guests name.
There are a few reasons why I suggest a possible team effort with another - possibly Maybrick. They both appear to have a hatred of women that I would class as a spitefull hatered.Often these men have intrinsic mental sexual problems that need a trigger.Having a partener that may have been unfauthful or promiscuos can trigger it.
Since Maybrick is one of the few suspects that travelled to and from the USA frequently, as did Tumblty, they may have crossed paths. They may have even had a gay sexual encounter, as I read that Tumblty was bisexual.
To get to the point.Men who have deep psychological problems regarding the male/female dynamic, can have it triggered by a partener being promiscuos, or even a paranoid delusion that a partener, or 'all woman', are promiscuos. Who do they take their revenge out on? Whores.They are the most promiscuos of all woman, and easy for killers to catch.
While the ripper was performing his surgical operations, I naturally assumed he had a lookout to indicate when it was time to split.
Thanks , Jason Smith |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 06, 2005 - 2:49 am: |
|
Hi Jason,
Thank you for your responce! I too have a suspicion that there were two men involved. I am not all that familiar with Maybrick. I have stayed away from the subject on purpose. I am still learning about the case and I prefer to focus on suspects that were contemperary suspects such as, Kosminski,Druitt and Tumblety. I am not discounting Maybrick. I am just pointing out that I do not know a great deal about him. He was a cotton merchant. He had malaria and became addicted to arsenic. His wife was later convicted of killing him. Years after the murder a diary surfaced. Maybrick confessed to the murders and discribed how he commited them. If the diary is genuine Maybrick does not mention an accomplise. I have never heard of maybrick being a homosexuall? Tumblety was a homosexuall and it has been debated if he was bisexuall or not. Tumblety may have made up stories of a wife and a tragic ending to a mariage to cover up his homosexuallity. I think that it is highly unlikely that Tumblety and Maybrick had a sexuall encounter. Tumblety preferd the company of younger men. If Tumblety had an accomplise I feel he would have been a younger man. He would have been disturbed and someone that Tumblety could manipulate.
Some people may dismiss the idea that Tumblety may have known Maybrick as laughable but I tend to weigh each theory objectively. I do not believe that Tumblety and Maybrick were working together to commite the ripper murders. The diary is the main evidence against Maybrick and I do not believe he makes any mention of having an accomplise. However the idea that Tumblety and Maybrick may have known eachother is possible. To my knowledge the idea has never been put forth before. I feel original Ideas are important. I do not know Stephen but I bet he started this site because he wanted to read fresh ideas. I wish more people would have the courage to post ideas that may be a little outside the box. I am not talking about a half court shot but it is alright to take a few three pointers.
Your friend, Brad |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 320
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 06, 2005 - 10:34 pm: |
|
"I do not believe that Tumblety and Maybrick were working together to commite the ripper murders."
Yegads. I swoon.
"The diary is the main evidence against Maybrick and I do not believe he makes any mention of having an accomplise. However the idea that Tumblety and Maybrick may have known eachother is possible. "
I am truly afraid. I will sleep with the lights on tonight.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1637
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 07, 2005 - 5:05 am: |
|
Hi All,
I think the idea has been put forward before that if Maybrick was involved, and had an accomplice, the accomplice could have written the diary as insurance.
I don't know how many of the diary's 'problem areas' would disappear, but no doubt they would only be replaced by a bigger one - the viability of the two-man theory itself.
Love,
Caz
X |
Chuk Yager
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, April 07, 2005 - 9:43 pm: |
|
Hello people ,
Thanks for pointing that out for me CB. I guess with Maybrick not mentioning it in his diary, it puts an end to that theory.As Sir Robert indicated , it would be a scary theory.But someone like Druitt who was also gay might well be plausible. Two gay men who hate women is a good motive.I think by the size and appearance of this Tumblty, he may have been the man in this scheme. That is to say he did the cutting.The other person, the one described by witness acounts may have brought the prostitutes to the designated kill zone, where Tumblty was ready and waiting.
I will anxiously await all new evidence that surfaces on him, as I am anxiously waiting for someone to tell us all whether this infernal Maybrick dairy is bona fide or 'bogus'.Hope springs eternal.
All the bestest - Jason Smith |
Frank Cassano, Toronto
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - 11:24 am: |
|
I, too, believe Tumblety is, by far, the most realistic suspect of any yet identified. I mean - good lord - how many people dow you know who run around with a collection of preserved female organs? As far as I'm concerned, that's the clincher, right there. I mean, how astronomical would the odds be of a man who not only openly detests women; but, who also happened to reside directly in the neighbourhood where the murders took place; had, at the very least, a rudimentary or working knowledge of the human anatomy, combined with a history of being experienced with medical operating tools; and, who possessed a prized collection of female organs preserved in jars? Well, I would venture to guess that the odds would be...astronomical! And lo, there we are in Whitechapel seeing women turning up murdered with their organs disturbed and often removed. The main two points I hear most often sited against Tumblety being JTR are: 1. He was a homosexual who, therefore, would not have had any sexual interest in women, and, 2. He was too tall. On the first point, there is no evidence that I am aware of that he proves conclusively that he was a homosexual. Did he have sex with males? Yes. Does that prove he was a homosexual? Not necessarily. It proved he had sex with males, is all. Tumblety, as we know, was disgraced in marriage which, seemingly, led him to swear off females. Isn't it possible, no, downright, likely, that there were other such incidents in his life which might have led him to take such a drastic step as to swear off women forever? He may have considered himself inadequate, unworthy, unattractive, insecure, etc, etc, when in the company of females. While this would have precluded him from having any sort of physical relations with them, it does not necessary follow that he ever stopped desiring them in a carnal fashion. After all, he was once married - which shows that he probably enjoyed having sex with women. This pent-up sexual tension might have worked as a ticking time bomb which eventually exploded within his psyche. On the second point - that of his being too tall - who says any of the 'witnesses' were ever, in fact, describing JTR? They saw 'somebody' who may have stood between 5'.5'' - 5'.7", as the records indicate. This might have been condeming evidence had they seen these suspects walking with your dear, sweet Mum, Sister, or Auntie - all of whom are wonderful, chaste, virtuous women who never go out much - but, it hardly applies where prostitutes are concerned. A prostitute may have a very large number of clients in a single hour - not to mention how many she could entertain over the course of an entire evening. So, the 'suspects' described by the 'witnesses' may simply have been yet another Tom, Dick, and Harry (hairy?) customer. |
Restless Spirit
Detective Sergeant
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 60
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, June 02, 2005 - 12:26 pm: |
|
Frank Cassano
Youmade some very good points for Tumblety,however the problem I have with this suspect is the fact that he was too obvious.He was very flambuoyant, dressed extravagantly, swooned through the streets on a horse, went through towns selling medicines, and generally made his presence well know, in other words you certainly couldn't miss him, or not notice him in a crowd, he was the crowd.
I personally believe our Jack to be far more private, one who could move through Whitechapel practically un-noticed, one who fit in with the crowd etc. One who moved silently in for the kill and left silently after the kill.
Tumbletly has all that you noted in your post that would certainly make us think, but I can't help feeling that one so full of himself and so obvious would have a difficult time being anything but a loud, and demonstrative braggart.
Restless Spirit
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3479
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 02, 2005 - 12:42 pm: |
|
Frank Cassano,
There are NO evidence whatsoever of that those jars with female reproduction organs ever existed in reality. That piece of information came from a secondary source that can not be verified or corroborated. You are arguing as if their existens was proven and a stated fact.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on June 02, 2005)
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 623
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 02, 2005 - 5:13 pm: |
|
Hi Frank,
In addition to the good points both Restless Spirit and Glenn made, I would like to say that the fact that in Chapman's case the murderer also took a piece of belly wall with him and the fact that only part of the womb was taken in Eddowes' case IMHO puts a hole in your 'pitch', if you will.
Ciao,
Frank
"Coincidence is logical"
Johan Cruijff
|
Frank Cassano, Toronto
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, June 03, 2005 - 6:45 am: |
|
Hi Greg:
It just occured to me that, with all due respect, your posted reply of a few days ago quite suspiciously resembles the original 'From Hell' letter! Therefore, as a duty-bound Ripperologist, I am compelled to ask you the following questions: 1. Can you explain your whereabouts during the fall of 1888?; and, 2. How do you feel about kidney pie?
All the best,
Frank C |
Frank Cassano, Toronto
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, June 03, 2005 - 9:12 am: |
|
Oops - my last message was meant for 'Glenn' not 'Gregg'.
Frank C |
Frank Cassano, Toronto
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, June 02, 2005 - 6:46 pm: |
|
Hi Frank,
Frankly, Frank, I don't see the relevance in your point about the belly wall, and partial uterus being removed. Do you mean to say that because they weren't fully removed from the bodies is an testament to the fact that the killer couldn't possibly have been Tumblety? If your point was an effort to call into question the killer's MO, all I can say is that NO criminal acts in precisely the same manner in every crime they commit. Psychopathic as they may be, they are, in the end, merely human - and humans often stray from the routine, even if subconsciously. I'm no criminal, but I can attest to the fact that I somemtimes shave the right side of my face first, while other times I shave the left side first. Sadly, by the end of the shave, it ends up looking like something JTR might have been responsible for! Who can say what was going through the killer's mind during the commission of the murders? Perhaps he felt that his uterus collection was full, or maybe - as in sports card collecting - he had 'doubles' and decided to move on to some other despicable act that he hadn't yet tried. I'm being facetious, of course, but I was proceeding under the assumption that Tumblety did, in fact, possess a collection of preserved organs. Now, if in fact there was no such collection - as I was sure there was - then Tumblety would definitely slip down the list of possible suspects. |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, June 03, 2005 - 12:16 am: |
|
Hi all,
Tumblety was said to have a collection of organs, twelve of witch were female wombs. Tumblety had other organs in his collection. Glenn is right, there is no proof that the collection ever existed. However, I personaly believe the colonel's story. Second hand information is dubious, and to believe any story that came from Dr. Tumblety could lead you down the wrong path. Tumblety may have made up the story about having been married.
Hi Mr. Cassono,
I believe that Tumblety did have a collection of organs. Not just wombs, but all types of organs. The ripper took Eddowe's kidney, and may have taken Kelly's heart. Inspector Abberline gave an interview in 1903 to the Pall Mall Gazzett. He put forth the theory that George Chapman may have been the ripper. He thought it was possible that Chapman was working on the behalve of someone else. Chapman was getting paid, harvesting the organs for a second party. This theory is a little far fetched, but it does suggest that the detectives who worked the case gave some thought that the organs were targeted, and that the ripper killed the woman to obtain them. Tumblety in my opinion had a collection of organs.
In the words of Ed Mcmann, You are correct sir. The two arguments that I have read the most against Tumblety are, 1. He was a homosexuall. 2. He was to tall. I think that it is a mistake to use modern day profiling on a case that is 116 years old. Society breeds there own serial killers. Homosexuall men today do not face the same problems that gay men did in 1888. Tumblety would have been under different pressures. Homosexuallity was considerd a form of sexuall insanity, and Tumblety would have been brought up with those views pounded into him. He may of had a hard time dealing with his urges, and his lack of sexuall interest in females. He may have hated woman, and blammed them for his homosexuallity. He may have taken out his frustration on them. Today Homosexuall serial killers usually kill men. They kill the objects of there lust, but homosexuallallity is excepted today. Gay men have a certain fredom that they did not have in 1888, and the motivation to kill would have been different. I am not an expert in this field, but there are other reason why we should not discount Tumblety because he was gay. 1. The ripper did not have sex with his victims. 2. Obtaining the organs may have been the reason for the murders.
3. We do not know the motive for the ripper murders.
4. Tumblety has a motive for killing prostitutes. He was set up by a prostitute to take a fall on an abortion charge. He could have spent the rest of his life in prison because of her.
5. Homosexuall men have killed woman before.
To rule Tumblety out because he was a gay man is flawed.
Tumblety has been discribed as 5'11 to 6'4. How tall was he? Judging height can be subjective.
There were reports of a tall men in the area and with the victims. Pipe man was described as tall. The man that was asking for Lusk address was said to be tall. A witness came forward after the Kelly murder, and claimed to see Kelly talking to a rather tall man around three in the morning.
The witnesses were describing the woman, not the ripper. For example, the man who claimed he saw Eddowes right before her body was found, identified her by the cloths she had on. He did not know her. It is possible that the witness was mistaken, and the woman he saw was not Eddowes. He identified the woman, and then the man that he saw talking to her. If the witness misidentified the victim, then his description of the man that he saw was not a description of the ripper. This is the case with most of the witnesses, they identified the victim. and then gave a description of the man that they saw with them. It is possible that no one saw the ripper. The one witness that I think saw the victim the morning she ws killed was Mary Cox. She knew Kelly. She talked to Kelly, and she lived next door to Kelly. However, I do not believe she saw the ripper. George Hutchinson claimed to know Kelly, and I do believe that Abberline believed him, but he may not have seen the ripper. To rule Tumblety out based on the few "eyewitnesses" is flawed
Hi Restless,
I read a newspaper report were a person who claimed to have known Tumblety said, the last time he saw the doctor, Tumblety looked like a begger. Another newspaper report told the story of two beggers who were arrested in Newyork early 1889. One of the beggers names was Frank Townsend, an alias of Tumblety. There is no proof that this man was Tumblety, but I think he may have been. My point is, I think Tumblety was a man who could wear many hats. He probably would have been smart enough to try and blend in. Murder is risky business, and I doubt that Tumblety would have been walking around with his chest puffed out. However George Hutchinson described a man who was dressed flashy. Tumblety was picked up shortly after Hutchinson came forward. GH'S description may not match Tumblety exactly, but the manner of dress may have been why Tumblety was picked up. Tumblety was arreated on November 7th. The way he was dressed then may have been similiar to the way that Hutchinson's man was dressed. Tumblety was suspected at the time of being Jack the ripper.
There have been many suspects put forward. The fact that Tumblety is one of the few suspects who were contemporary suspects, makes him one of the best suspects yet.
Your friend, Brad |
Restless Spirit
Detective Sergeant
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 62
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Friday, June 03, 2005 - 1:46 pm: |
|
Hi Brad
I guess it depends on what a person believes based on where that information originates, what source.
The reports I have read on Tumblety describes him and his behavior as I described in my post.
It is true that authors have no doubt made errors in their books, possibly based on incorrect information given to them, or exaggerate info to fit their subject. The newspapers of the time were certainly no exception to presenting information in a sensational style in order to sell their papers. They too were fed BS by some witnesses, Packart comes to mind. Witness reports seemed to change on a regular basis.
I do not dispute that it is indeed very possible that Dr. Tumblety (Dr. Quack) may have had a stash of body parts but were they human? Was this just a show he put on in order to convince people that he was a legitimate Doctor, while he was trying to sell them his made up medicines?
There is another possible explanation for his dressing flambuoyantly for a while then dressing down, maybe he was bi-Polar.
In any event, I sum up by saying that although Tumblety is a very interesting suspect,how much of what has been read about him can be actually verified.
I respect the fact that he is your suspect, but I firmly believe that untill we can verify and or disreguard the reports, stories about him, I am not persuaded that he is the best suspect so far.
Best regards
Restless Spirit
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3484
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 03, 2005 - 2:04 pm: |
|
Frank C,
"It just occured to me that, with all due respect, your posted reply of a few days ago quite suspiciously resembles the original 'From Hell' letter! Therefore, as a duty-bound Ripperologist, I am compelled to ask you the following questions: 1. Can you explain your whereabouts during the fall of 1888?; and, 2. How do you feel about kidney pie?"
As for your first sentence, I have no idea what you talking about. OK, Canadian humour, but which of the letters?
As for your questions:
1. How can I remember my whereabouts in the fall of 1888 when I can't recall where I was in 1988?
2. I admit, I prefer fish and ships.
Seriously: fact remains, that those jars of female organs comes from an unverified testimony, not corroborated by others. Even the authors that has investigated Tumblety have admitted this. It doesn't mean that it with certainty can be dismissed as a hoax, but it is still unverified and not proven.
You will run into serious problems if you treat it as a stated fact. However one chooses to believe the Colonel's story is of course a matter of personal judgement and interpretation, but Tumblety was a flamboyant person, quite possibly a pathological liar and manipulator and a very shrewd PR agent for himself. We know he created many rumours and articles about himself (probably in order to etch his name and his products into the minds of the general public) and that he was a well-known, charismatic person in States, liked and disliked. Those kind of persons generally also draw to themselves other attention-seekers who wants to share the spot-light.
As for the Jack the Ripper murders, I don't see him as a good suspect, but I am not entirely prepared to rule him out either (and certainly not on the homosexual grounds -- it is of course exceptions, but homosexuals murdering people of the opposite sex has happened to my knowledge and just because it is very unusual doesn't mean that it is so impossible that that alone can be a foundation enough to rule him out).
The Lodger story is in my mind very interesting and could very well be related to the Ripper, but I fail to see the evidence of that the Lodger and Tumblety were one and the same.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on June 03, 2005)
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Frank Cassano, Toronto
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, June 03, 2005 - 3:12 pm: |
|
Hi Glenn:
You're right, I was joking. However...I originally mentioned a similarity between your previous posting and the infamous 'From Hell' letter (based solely on similarities in style, mind you). You then asked me what letter I was talking about. Well, is there more than one 'From Hell' letter?
Frank C
P.S. Canadian humour, indeed! Toronto, alone, is responsible for Jim Carey, Martin Short, Eugene Levy, Lorne Michaels (producer of Saturday Night Live), Dan Ackroyd, (the late) Phil Hartman, (the late) John Candy, Rick Moranis, etc., etc.,. Alright, I've come down off my soap box now.
|
Alex Weir
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, June 03, 2005 - 7:32 pm: |
|
Having spent a days reading about each suspect (I'm a bit of a newbie to this whole thing) one name stands out a mile ..Tumblety, Tumblety, Tumblety. I hope you pros don't mind me saying this, but am I being short-sighted?
If the Maybrick evidence is down to a diary, that just seems pretty poor. There must be loads of people who are a bit touched who reckon that they are in fact serial killers or other unsusual, prominent, characters.
The Kosminski idea seems to hinge around the fact that 'he was a bit mad and was in the area and someone kind of recognised him (in the dark) as being a man who had spoken to one of the prostitues so he probably did it'. Am I wrong? (perhaps I should do some more reading). Could it not be that Kosminski killed Eddowes and Tumblety the rest? Do they all have to be killed by the same person? Reading some of the history of the area, it sounds as if there were a few random murders in that area every year anyway, so Tumblety need not have committed all of them to qualify as JRT. He needed to obtain some more fresh organs (assuming he collected them) so what better place in the world than London where this kind of murder was going on all the time. When he started perhaps he did not even know how much interest would be generated as he thought the police would blame the usual suspects (gangs, drunks, thieves). It was suggested that he was too tall. It is extremely diffcult to judge heights of people when they are not in groups (and in the dark). A few inches is not easy to detect. If he was 5'11 as I read somewhere else, he would not have stuck out that much. People were generally shorter then (3 to 4 inches) but if you look around today, there are many, many men taller than 6'3, so I don't think 5'11 was that tall. As for his attire, on the nights of the murders he would have worn something normal so no-one would recognise him. This would be the perfect alibi if his usual outfit was highly obvious. No-one would suspect him.
The whole homosexuality thing adds to the evidence, as there was no evidence of sexual activity at the scenes. I thought most heterosexual serial killers usually leave 'evidence', so the lack of activity points to someone who had no interest in women (this is just an idea).
I just saw a programme on JRT which stated that there were a series of similar murders of prostitutes which occured at the same time that Tumblety made a trip to the Caribbean. Is this well known? Please, let me know if there is anything original in what I said or if it's the same old pro Tumblety propaganda. |
Malta Joe
Detective Sergeant
Username: Malta
Post Number: 100
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, June 04, 2005 - 1:54 pm: |
|
When the Evans + Gainy book came out 12 years ago, Dr. Tumblety's Nov 7th arrest for misdemeanor violations was told of, and his subsequent arrest on Monday Nov 12th on the suspicion of him being Kelly's murderer was also reported. When I first read of this, I remember asking myself, "I wonder if Tumblety's Nov 12th arrest occurred before or after Hutchinson had spoken to Sgt. Bradshaw and Inspector Abberline?" On Monday Nov 12th at 6pm, Hutchinson was said to have entered the Commercial Street Police Station and had given a description of the man who Hutchinson claimed had entered into Miller's Court with Kelly. It's been many years, and I've never been able to find out the answer to that question. Did Tumblety get arrested on Nov 12th before or after Hutchinson had spoken at 6pm? CB, your comment about Tumblety getting arrested shortly after Hutchinson appeared on the scene...that was just your personal opinion, wasn't it? If not, then I'd really like to know if you got that info from a dependable source. I've been looking for any kind of source that could help me on that question for a long time now!
The police considered Hutchinson's description of Kelly's companion to be worthy of a police artist's sketch. The Saturday Nov 24th Illustrated Police News displayed this sketch artist's work, and it can be currently viewed in the "Letters From Hell" book. It's intriguing to take the famous picture of Tumblety's 1865 St. Louis arrest and put it side by side with this Illustrated Police News picture. Tumblety was said to have been heavier in 1888 than he was in 1865, and his days of constantly wearing flashy clothing were well behind him by 1888, too. There were many articles in 1888 which told of Tumblety having 'dyed his moustache" and "painted his cheeks" so he would have looked younger than his age when Hutchinson's description was drawn up. Comparing those two pictures does provoke a lot of thoughts.
A friendly Casebook Member recently sent me Tumblety's 3rd autobiography. I've just read the part where Tumblety claimed to have walked on the Island of Malta in the late 1870's. Oh no. I could just picture a great great grandfather of mine in Malta trading in all of our family heirlooms in exchange for a couple of bottles of Tumblety's cure-all herbal remedies!
|
Howard Brown
Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 500
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, June 04, 2005 - 2:13 pm: |
|
Malta Joe...
Great story in the last Ripperologist.
I was waiting for someone to mention the descriptions given [ in this case, Hutchinson ]and how off they may have been, regarding Dr. T. I, for one, agree that a person's appearance could be far different going by contemporary photos and what they could have made themselves up to look like,as in the case of "painted cheeks" Tumblety. Good point,sor.
HowBrown
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
