|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3485
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 04, 2005 - 2:31 pm: | 
|
Frank C,
"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)."
In style... hmmm. OK... at least I hope I am a better speller than the author of the Lusk letter.
Alex,
"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 am sorry, but this a misconception.
Sexual "evidence" are seldom seen in cases where sexual serial killers have indulged in mutilation of their victims. It is all about fantasies, and the mutilations actually acts as a replacement for actual sexual activity, from what we know so far. Not finding any signs of sexual activity in mutilation cases like these, actually is precisely what we could expect.
Where this leaves the discussion about homosexuality or bisexuality, I don't know, though.
All the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Malta Joe
Detective Sergeant
Username: Malta
Post Number: 101
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, June 04, 2005 - 6:13 pm: |
|
Thank you for your kind words about the article, Howard. Without Jeff Bloomfield putting me wise to the Sept 30, 1888 document there would have been no article. So Jeff really deserves much of the credit. Mr. Evans' input provided us with credible motives and I'm really appreciative of his kind help. I'm flattered that the article was presented in such a fine magazine like Ripperologist, and it's always a pleasure to work with Mr. Begg, Chris, Mr. Zinna and Adam.
Joe
|
Robert W. House
Inspector
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 245
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 04, 2005 - 8:27 pm: |
|
" I think that it is a mistake to use modern day profiling on a case that is 116 years old."
I don't agree with this. Either youy accept profiling or you don't but I don't see why "modern" profiling should be fundamentally different from profiling 100 years ago. We are maily talking about deep rooted psychological factors here. Of course we should take into consideration differences in the modern world... transportation by car, effect of media, different job life, etc... but fundamentally, the the majority of the profiling is the same. In my opinion.
Rob |
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 501
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, June 04, 2005 - 9:16 pm: |
|
Profiling may work better in a homogenuous society, such as Iceland or Kenya, than it could in a heterogenuous one, such as the USA . The article in the last Rip,with Mr. Bailey, discusses the success rate of profilers to be around 8 percent of the total cases where profiling was used. Thats only 8 percent above zero.
In regard to the height as described by the witnesses in a couple of assumed witnessings...tall men who are heavier than someone their height is normally, aren't seen as tall....while thinner,skinny tall men,the same height as the aforementioned chunky guy,are considered tall....and the one in 1888 as perhaps normal height. People are funny that way in describing another person.
Mr. Chetcuti has stated that Dr. T. was heavier in 1888 than in 1865. If "each" Dr. T from these two dates stood side by side, a casual,cursory glance would describe the thinner Dr. T as taller.
I have seen Phil Hill,for example,make mention of trying to put ourselves in the mindset of people back in 1888 to get a better idea of what and why and how they lived. Thats a excellent concept.
On the other hand, Robert House is correct,imho, that profiling,with the elimination of these "additions" , such as the automobile,for example,still leave us with an animal whose brain is basically wired the same way it was back in the days of when we wore loin cloths and lived in caves.
Not being an academician,I am not qualified to go into long diatribes about profiling. I will say this though..
A man like Tumbelty most certainly could have been the Ripper. His age..height..gender preference..are really not the issue from a smart layman's point of view.
From reading Stewarts' great book and the articles by Malta Joe and other folks, it doesn't take a pro-profiler to see that in Tumbelty's case,considering all the actions and situations he found himself in during his life....where there was a will, there may have been a way. There is a first time for everything.
HowBrown
|
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 502
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, June 04, 2005 - 9:29 pm: |
|
Dear Mr.Cassano....
A quick note on the following comment you made above...
"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."
Umm... Where I live,in Philly,we consider that male-on-male thing to be one of the three best reasons to think someone is gay. The other two, an ability to co-ordinate a living room and the other,being able to watch an entire hour of a Richard Simmons workout tape without blowing chunks, sort of qualifies a guy to be considered gay.
I'd tend to think that he was gay,Mr.Cassano
By the way,SCTV was a Toronto-based classic.
Back to Tumblety.....
(Message edited by howard on June 04, 2005)
HowBrown
|
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Chief Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 681
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 04, 2005 - 11:14 pm: |
|
Hi all,
Joe, I attended my 30th Class reunion today at my college, and took some time to check out a reference book that I was unable (sorry to say) to get to last time I looked into Hughes-Hallett.
I found the following biographical squib on him in a book entitled WHO'S WHO OF BRITISH MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT: Volume II: 1886 - 1918, A BIOGRAPHICAL DICTIONARY OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Edited by M[ichael] Stenton and S[tephen] Lees.
It was published by a British concern (Hassocks, Sussex, England: The Harvester Press, Ltd., c. 1978). On page 184 is this biographical material. I suspect you may have most of this, but here goes:
HUGHES-HALLETT, Col. Francis Charles. 108 Cromwell Road, London. United Service, Junior United Service, and Carlton. S. of Charles Hughes-Hallett, Esq., Judge in the East India Company's service (and grand-s. of the Rev. Charles Hughes-Hallett, of Higham Park, Canterbury, Kent) by Emma Mary, d. of Charles Roberts, Esq., also Judge in the East India Company's service. The name Hallett was assumed by the above-named Rev. Charles Hughes-Hallett in accordance with the will of Mr. Hallett, of Little Dunmow, Essex, from whom the property held by the celebrated "Flitch of Bacon" tenure, with the Lordship of the Manor. came into the family. B. 1838; m. 1st Lady Selwyn, widow of Lord Justice Selwyn (she died 1875); 2ndly, Emilie, d. of Col. Von Schaumburg, of Philadelphia, U.S.A. Educ. at Brighton Coll., and the Royal Military Academy, Woolwich Service in the Royal Artillery and Royal Horse Artillery, and retired in 1872. In 1881 was appointed to the command of the 2nd Brigade North Irish Division of the Royal Artiller, and this he exchanged in 1884 for the command of the 2nd Brigade Southern Division of the Royal Artillery. "A firm but independent supporter of Lord Salisbury's Government." Unsuccessfully contested Sandwich in 1874. First elected for Rochester in 1885 and sat until he accepted Chiltern Hundreds in March 1889. Died 1903."
I can suggest one of two further ideas to you about research here, but reading this you may pick them up yourself.
I am looking forward to reading the second portion of the essay on Hughes-Hallett, Burton, Stead, and Tumblety.
Best wishes,
Jeff |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2014
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 05, 2005 - 5:29 am: |
|
Hi Howard,
Some excellent points made above all of which I agree with.
Tumblety certainly is a most important suspect.
Two points come to mind for me re his viability as JtR.
I believe JtR was mad or to be more precise suffered from a condition that could lie dormant or in remission at certain times such as paranoia
only to recur in completely psychotic form at various times completely unexpectedly and lasting for various lengths of time as indeed it does today, if untreated ,or if patients come off their medication.
Now obviously I could be wrong here and Jack could be your classic serial killer.And its helpful to appreciate cultural/ethnic differences and to be politically correct here since no race or culture has THE
monopoly on cruelty/murder/serial killing etc
-in fact there is a hell of a stink currently
in Mexico where its thought rich perverted business men are paying to have girls from factories kidnapped for rape/torture/murder and mutilation.
And yes,Tumblety could have been the ripper.
But first as I say he doesnt have what for me is the essential ingrediant-the zealous,solitary madness that the crime scenes seem to symbolise.
Secondly here was a man who seemed vaguely involved with a "herbal business"-making lots and lots of money!
So was he a money launderer for the Fenians-being as he seems at some times to have had sympathies in that direction?
And if so then the police may have been happy to circulate rumours of him and the Whitechapel murders-----just as there seems to have been a curious attempt to further criminalise the character of the notorious Carlos the Jackal-if I remember rightly---and other men[mostly]wanted for crimes against the state.Tumblety could have been some sort of double agent re Ireland who the Powers in Govt simply were not too sure of so to be on the safe side prepared some back up scare stories.
I still think him a good suspect though ,mostly on account of the Littlechild Letter and the brilliant stuff Stewart Evans and co have unearthed.
Best Wishes
Natalie
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 629
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 05, 2005 - 8:41 am: |
|
Hi Frank,
Two of the reasons Tumblety is suspected of being the Ripper are his alleged collection of female organs and the remark made by Coroner Wynne Baxter at Annie Chapman's inquest that an American had asked two institutions to procure a number of wombs, for each of which he was willing to pay £ 20.
Because this American apparently made his request to institutions that would have had complete organs, I’ve always thought the man would have expected complete specimens. If so and if this man was Tumblety, I thought it likely that his collection would only contain complete specimens of female organs and that he wouldn’t be interested in part of a belly wall, an incomplete womb or a kidney.
I wrongly guessed you would hold a similar view as far as the completeness of the specifically female organs kept by Tumblety are concerned. Since you obviously don’t, you can just forget about my previous post – if you hadn’t done that already.
All the best,
Frank
"Coincidence is logical"
Johan Cruijff
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3486
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 05, 2005 - 9:04 am: |
|
I agree on that Evans & Gainey make a very good case for Tumblety in their book, although I find very little evidence of that he and the Lodger were one and the same, which is an important argument in the Tumblety theory. I would expect there would be more than one American doctor in London in 1888, and there is no evidence whatsoever implying that Tumblety ever resided in or knew East End.
However, The Lodger is probably one of the best books I have ever read on the subject.
What makes a great case for Tumblety is the Littlechild letter (although, as we've seen in official police notes regarding other suspects, that does not necessarily in itself have to mean anything in the end) and the fact that he was hunted by the British police all the way to America.
So much in his validity as a suspect lies in the fact that he was a contemporary suspect. That can't be disregarded.
Still, I don't see him as a good suspect, and I certainly don't think his character and emotional state fits someone like the Ripper. Tumblety was a con man and a publicity-seeking crook. I fail to see his connection to murdering and mutilating women in a serial killer kind of fashion. And as Natalie correctly states, I don't see the lunacy in the Ripper's crimes expressed in Tumblety's personality.
All the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 505
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, June 05, 2005 - 9:05 am: |
|
Natalie...
Yes ma'am..the fact that he was making money and not based on a guaranteed paycheck at the end of the week/month, is one of the seminal differences between Dr. T and say,the Jewish suspects we know of...and Barnett,Druitt,Stephenson,etc. This desire on his part to make a living off of selling medicinal herbs [ they work, by the way...you should see my nails,girl ! ] may be one of the first considerations to dismiss him as a suspect. He seems to really be focused on making money,as well as getting involved with the political theater..............as did John Wayne Gacy. Gacy is a sickening example of someone that we know of [Gacy ]who did not shy away from public view and did make a living by being self employed...just as Tumbelty himself did...
Thanks for bringing up the money and politics,Nats !!!
HowBrown
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3487
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 05, 2005 - 9:12 am: |
|
Rob wrote:
"Either youy accept profiling or you don't but I don't see why "modern" profiling should be fundamentally different from profiling 100 years ago. We are maily talking about deep rooted psychological factors here. Of course we should take into consideration differences in the modern world... transportation by car, effect of media, different job life, etc... but fundamentally, the the majority of the profiling is the same. In my opinion."
And I actually agree with this.
Of course differences in modern elements have to be taken into account -- and maybe even more importantly, namely that in old cases there usually don't remain enough documented facts in order to create a profile of the same quality as a modern one -- but all in all I fail to see why it should be impossible to use criminal profiling in a 116 year old case. It all depends on the availibility of relevant information at hand.
Then, of course, if profiling as such is reliable enough to use as an investigation tool in ANY murder case, is of course another matter.
All the best
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: 630
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 05, 2005 - 9:14 am: |
|
Hi Brad,
It stands out that you didn't mention the one witness that most probably did see the Ripper: Elizabeth Long. And she deposed the man in Chapman's company "appeared to be a little taller than the deceased", who was only 5 feet tall.
Of course, she may have been wrong, but she needn't have seen him that well to make a fair estimate of how tall he was. What makes her estimate more reliable in my view is that she compared the man's height to Chapman's. Long's estimate just doesn't fit Tumblety, who undoubtedly was significantly taller than Chapman.
All the best,
Frank
"Coincidence is logical"
Johan Cruijff
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3488
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 05, 2005 - 9:21 am: |
|
To be fair, I think we should be cautious about using the length argument, Frank, for or against a suspect. Sometimes people make it out to be, like Tumblety was a giant compared to everybody else, which was certainly not the case if we look at what the numbers really tell us.
Length -- together with age and colours -- are probably the most difficult features for a witness to determine, and a very small margin of error of judgment is enough to place doubt upon such an argument.
I personally do not think this argument is a strong one against Tumblety -- considering the general problems with witness statements. Just my view.
All the best
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: 631
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 05, 2005 - 9:56 am: |
|
Hi Glenn,
The only reason I brought her up was that she's the one witness who most probably did see the Ripper and that Brad left her out. The reason I do attach more value to her estimate of his height than to witness descriptions in general is, like I said, the fact that she compared him to her. She didn't make an individual estimate, she didn't say: he was about so and so tall.
Like you must know, I concede that we should be very careful with witness descriptions. I'm inclined not to attach much value to them, unless it involves a very striking detail - like, for instance, Tumblety's height, because he seems to have been clearly taller than the average man of those days.
True, it may not be a very strong point against Tumblety, but I think it can't be completely disregarded either. I fully agree with you that his character and personality are far better points against him.
All the best,
Frank
"Coincidence is logical"
Johan Cruijff
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3490
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 05, 2005 - 10:02 am: |
|
True, Frank, but just because she is detailed on that point doesn't mean that she is right or that her estimate is correct. It is still an estimate based on personal preferences and perceptions. Just wanted to point that out.
Otherwise, good points, Frank, as usual.
(Hey! I saw on your profile that you were involved in the flower exhibitions back home in Holland! Flowers and gardening happens to be one of my very great interests.)
All the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1523
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 05, 2005 - 10:25 am: |
|
Hi Joe, Jeff, Howard, Frank, Glenn, et al.
We need to know more about Hughes-Hallett's military service. We know that both Burton and Hughes-Hallett served in India, and that according to the biographical entry you found, Jeff, "In 1881 was appointed to the command of the 2nd Brigade North Irish Division of the Royal Artillery, and this he exchanged in 1884 for the command of the 2nd Brigade Southern Division of the Royal Artillery."
Joe states in the first part of his essay that we published in Ripperologist, "A commander of any British Army division based in Ireland presumably would know a thing or two about Fenians."
Hughes-Hallett's unit was based in Ireland, but was he actually much in Ireland or was he in India or elsewhere most of the time? My understanding is, right or wrong, that because of the troubles in Ireland, the British Irish regiments usually served abroad rather than in Ireland.
My other reservation about Joe's statement is that the military did not chase Fenians. They left that to Special Branch. Of course, Hughes-Hallett might have known something of the Fenians through his connections either through headquarters in Ireland or otherwise although he possibly would not have had any intimate hands-on experience of tracking down Fenians. He might have learned more about the Fenian movement through his work in Parliament than in the military.
At any rate, I think we need to know more details about Hughes-Hallett's career and how that might reflect on his knowledge of Fenians and Tumblety.
All my best
Chris
(Message edited by ChrisG on June 05, 2005)
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
See "Jack--The Musical" by Chris George & Erik Sitbon
The Drama of Jack the Ripper Weekend
Charlotte, NC, September 16-18, 2005
http://www.actorssceneunseen.com/ripper.asp
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 632
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 05, 2005 - 10:54 am: |
|
Yes, Glenn, although this is off topic, I'm working for what is called the mediation bureau of Flower Auction Aalsmeer.
I think most people know how the auction principle works: growers bring on their products and by means of the auction clock buyers buy what they need if prices are ok. The mediation bureau brings both parties together in a different way: buyers let us know what they need and we then try to find the right product/grower for him (price-wise or qualitty-wise) or the grower offers a product and we try to find a buyer. This goes for the 'day trade' as well as for the long(er) term trade.
I think you would love the hectic life the Auction offers and all the contacts it involves!
If you have any questions, fire away and I'll see if I can answer them - in the Pub Talk area, of course.
Vi ses,
Frank
"Coincidence is logical"
Johan Cruijff
|
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Chief Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 683
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 05, 2005 - 12:15 pm: |
|
Hi Chris,
In thinking about Hughes-Hallett and Ireland, another thing crossed my mind (and another area for research). There may be some contact here between Hughes-Hallett and Sir Charles Warren.
If you look back to that "Criminologist" article on Warren that we reprinted two years ago in THE RIPPEROLOGIST, I mentioned an incident in the late 1880s where Warren was on a visit to see his old friend and rival Sir Redvers Buller, who was stationed in Ireland. My Encyclopaedia Britannica (11th edition) has an article on Buller, and says the following: "In 1886 he was sent to Ireland to inquire into the "moonlighting" outrages, and for a short time he acted as under-secretary for Ireland, but in 1887 he was appointed quartermaster-general at the war office." Warren had visited Buller in 1886-87, and had a midnight meeting with some locals who were curious about his detective abilities and habits. It is just possible that he and Hughes-Hallett may have crossed paths as military men with contacts with Ireland or with Buller.
Best wishes,
Jeff |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 586
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, June 05, 2005 - 3:35 pm: |
|
Howard, you wrote above:
... Where I live,in Philly,we consider that male-on-male thing to be one of the three best reasons to think someone is gay...
I'm not sure whether to take your post as ironic {which I hope it is) or sincere.
However, I'd like to make the following comments, if only to set the record straight (if that's the right word!!).
I don't think that the statement is true either NOW or in 1888.
Today there are plenty of countries and cultures where two men having sex is NOT considered to make either or both homosexual. In some Islamic countries and in parts of South America, for a man to be passive orally and active anally would not necessarily make him homosexual. In the Czech Republic there seems to be no particular delineation (certainly not a moral one) between straight and gay - it's just sex. people don't think of themselves in that way.
In 1888 (pre-freud and various other things) there was no real vocabulary to use about homosexuality. The LAW delineated sex between two men (no one was prepared to describe to Queen Victoria what two women might get up to)
as illegal. But prior to a recent Act, it was acts such as sodomy that were illegal.
TE Lawrence (of Arabia) was probably homosexual, but I don't think he had words to describe it, or thought of himself in those terms. Hence his strange behaviour because he could not understand the strange emotions and feelings running through him. I suspect his relationship were chaste, though his feelings were probably not!! hence his feeling he needed to be punished.
As a classical scholar he knew that heterosexual men in the ancient world might be married and have cildren but still have a sexual relationship with a young "ephebe" (younger lad) but this was a mentoring sort of relationship as well. A permenant relationship between two men (not necessarily sex) would have been seen as perverse. So it was not sex but other things that defined homosexuality.
Straight men may have gay sex for many reasons, including curiousity, seduction, absence of woman/other means of release etc. It would not necessarily IMHO make those men gay.
The relevance of all this? Having sex with lads would not necessarily imply Tumblety was homosexual, or even bisexual. It probably does but need not.
Indeed, if he had feelings for men but no words or models to use to describe or understand it, it might be a motivation for violence.
I have a personal theory that in the modern world, much domestic violence/battered partners, can be put down to undereducated or otherwise uninformed individuals having feelings of various emotional/sexual kinds and not understanding them; having no frame of reference. Puzzled and hurting, they lash out physically.
Anyone who reads good literature might understand this. have you ever read a novel or a book of any kind which made you say: "Good heaven's! That describes something I have felt but was never able to describe." And the feeling that goes with that of relief that you now understand yourself better, but also that you are not alone - someone else has felt the same way, and found words to describe it.
Hope this makes sense.
And hope liberal attitudes eventually reach Philly!!
Phil
|
Malta Joe
Detective Sergeant
Username: Malta
Post Number: 102
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, June 05, 2005 - 6:25 pm: |
|
Jeff, thanks for posting up the HH biography. I had read that before, and it does provide for a good basis for research. HH's widow, Emilie Hughes-Hallett, was quite a lady in her own right. The book "Famous Belles of the Nineteenth Century" by Virginia Tatnall Peacock dedicated a chapter to Emilie von Schaumberg (Mrs. Hughes-Hallett.)
While I believe both HH's military command in Ireland along with his Parliament experiences kept him updated on Fenian and Irish Home Rule matters, it is difficult to say which of the two had a deeper effect. Chris may be right about HH's Parliament experience being more of a dominant influence. But the Vanity Fair's comment that HH "...had brought down upon himself the scowls and muttered imprecations of the Irish Brigade" seems to suggest that there was a strong military influence to this as well. HH's command of a Royal Artillery Division in Ireland (1881-1885) occurred during a time when Fenian dynamite attacks were a serious issue. Littlechild's office fell victim to such an attack during the May 1884 Fenian bombing of Scotland Yard.
It's tough to find info on HH. I've checked with his old college (Brighton) and I've looked into his former military academy (Woolrich) but there have been no records left behind concerning him. I couldn't even tell you where he died in 1903. Even if he left his memoirs behind with his widow, I still haven't been able to determine when or where Emilie Hughes-Hallett had died either. I know she was a well-known figure in Dinard, France as well as in Philadelphia, Pa.
The Prince of Wales had high compliments for Emilie.
Jeff, I'm currently looking into the longshot chance of an actual photograph of Tumblety being in existence. It would be in New York City. If anything come of it, I'll let you know and maybe you can take a look-see at it. Every picture we've seen of Tumblety so far has always been a hand-drawn sketch. It'll be great to see an actual photograph, so I hope we get lucky. |
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 512
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, June 05, 2005 - 8:57 pm: |
|
Dear Phil..
Yeah,I was being sincere,my man..Here in backwater Philly, we still believe that two men doing the do are gay...its their business,not mine,as I bop to another beat than they do, in that aspect of life.
Not that it matters what Tumblety was sexually. Who cares?
All the best,Phil...
HowBrown
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3491
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 05, 2005 - 10:21 pm: |
|
Malta Joe,
Indeed. One would reckon, that with such a publicity-seeking and outgoing character like Tumblety, there should be some photos out there. I am certain of that he probably took a lot of photo shots, but that they hay have become lost in archives or something.
A flamboyant person like Tumblety not being photographed is an unthinkable scenario. I do hope you find some, Malta Joe. I look forward this with interest.
All the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 592
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, June 06, 2005 - 1:44 am: |
|
It matters, of course, Howard, because the past was not the present. Attitudes, thought processes, motivations, explanations, all change when one goes back into an older culture.
making assumptions based on current attitudes about (say) Tumblety could be both inaccurate and misleading.
It's no different when one comes down to words - assuming that in 1888 the same word meant what it does today, could lead to "howlers" in interpretation. Two examples come to mind:
in 2005 we commonly tend to think of the word "plastic" as meaning something moulded and hard, in 1888 it would have conveyed malleability and movement - as in "poses plastique". (Yes I know we still refer to "plastic" explsive in that sense, but that's not the common meaning of the word today).
In 1888 a computer would have been a person employed to do calculations, now it's a machine.
With Tumblety,I think his sexuality may be very important. It got him arrested. But I believe we need to be careful about avoiding such crass assumptions as an act equates to an attitude. Repression or mental confusion about emotions can be an awfully powerful motivator.
Phil
|
Frank Cassano, Toronto
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, June 05, 2005 - 12:07 pm: |
|
Howard:
Regarding Tumblety's 'gay'ness...there are plenty of documented cases of men who have dabbled with homosexuality simply because they are considered unworthy by females, rather than it being a true preference. It would be one thing to be openly bisexual - this would indicate having a sense of choice available to you. And if that were the case, the person would be happy knowing that they have, what they consider to be, the best of both worlds. So, if Tumblety was a person who was, in essence, forced to turn to men for his sexual gratification because of his inadequacies with women - whatever they may have been, real or imagined, physical or psychological - then, this might well have resulted in the extreme amounts of hate, anger, and frustration that Tumblety was known to have expressed towards women; simply because...this would have been a cruel reminder that he was NOT capable of performing with women. In other words, 'Tough Beans for you, Dr!'. Period. Howard, how would we feel if we, as heterosexual males, were not allowed to 'perform' with women? We'd be extremely angry, wouldn't we? I believe we would...and, similarly, wouldn't that go a long way in explaining Tumblety's legendary anger, as well? This would only be exascerbated by the reality that we now had to turn to men for sexual gratification - if we wanted any at all. Either than, or remain celibate. From all I've read about Tumblety and his gregariousness/arrogance/ostentatiousness, he reeks of a person who demanded in getting his own way. Unfortunately for him, he wouldn't have the final say in whether or not women 'wanted' him...it was - and still is - the woman's call in the end.
Glenn and Frank:
On the matter of the suspect's height, as related by the witness, Long...isn't it entirely possible that the victim was standing on the curb (or some other pronouncement on the ground) while the suspect was standing below on the street? This would easily have accounted for another 3-5" in height differential.
Frank C. |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, June 05, 2005 - 9:00 pm: |
|
Hi restless,
Thanks for your responce! You are right, there is alot of information out there, and it is hard to choose what to believe.
Hi Howard,
Good point about weight making a person seem more stout, and not as tall as they actually are.
Your friend, Brad |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, June 05, 2005 - 8:53 pm: |
|
Hi Frank,
Thanks for your reply! I am guilty of being to eager to chase, and I often make mistakes. I Read Elizabeth's inquest testimoney. I am not going to try and convince you that Long did not see the ripper. I am sure you can make a solid case that she did, but I would like to run a few things by you.
1. Elizabeth claimed that the man she saw was over forty. She is one of the few witnesses that claims the ripper was older. This is not a strike against Tumblety.
2. The man was a little bit taller then Chapman. What does that mean, it is kind of vague.
3. It is common to see men and woman standing about. The question has to be asked, was it really Chapman she saw?
4. She usually does not pay the men and woman she sees at night much notice. How much attention to detail did she really pay to Chapman and her man?
If you break her testimoney down, what we have is a man over 40 who is a little taller then Chapman. I do not see how her description is a strike against Tumblety. I understand your point. long did not claim that the man was a great deal taller then the woman, and you would think if Tumblety was over six foot he might have gave that impression. I am not sure just how tall Tumblety was. I have read that he was 5'11, and I have read 6'4, so how tall was he?
Mary Cox knew Kelly. She lived next door, and the reason she is more reliable is, she saw Kelly. She talked to Kelly. She knew Kelly, and she watched Kelly enter her house with a man. George Hutchinson also claimed to have a friendship with Kelly. If his story is true, he saw Kelly. He talk to her, and he saw her enter her home with a man. The difference between there testimoney, and a witness like long is, they knew the victim. They saw the victim walking into her home. Long after seeing the body claimed that Chapman. was the woman she saw. She may have made a mistake.
Hi Joe,
I asked the same question you did about a year ago. I posted under the three best suspects thread, I did not get much of a responce. However, it is good to know that my thought process is not so crazy, and you had considerd the same Idea. I began thinking about the possibility that Tumblety may have been picked up based on George's description, when I saw the picture of Hutchinson's man on the documentory, The Hunt for Jack the Ripper. The man in the picture looked older. He looked heavier, and with little bit of imagination he looked similiar to Tumblety's picture. I then learned that Hutchinson came forward three days after Kelly was murderd. Tumblety was arrested around the same time. Then I read a newspaper report on page 393 in Evans and Skinner Ultimate Companion. The article tells the story of a man claiming to be a medical man who was picked up and questiond. After giving an account of his movements he was released. The police had orders to follow him while his story was being checked out. They followed him for 5 days [past five days] before he gave them the slip. The man was said to match the description that witnesses gave at the Kelly inquest. The article was printed in the Times November 19th, and the Star November 19th When you subtract the 5 days that the man was followed after he was released, then the doctor would have been arrested around the same time as Tumblety The only witnesses that I could think of that the police thoght were crediable was Mary Cox, and George Hutchinson. I know that George did not apear at the inquest, but the press often made little mistakes. The medical man refered to in the article was arrested in the afternoon. I am not claiming the man in the article was Tumblety, but the similarity in the two stories was enough to get me thinking.
I realise that I just gave you a long answer when all that I needed to post is, no Malta, I do not have any proof that Tumblety was arrested after Hutchinson came forward. You humble me. I am not much of a researcher. I will leave that to you and others who have the skill and patience.
The interesting thing to me is Tumblety's arrest record. If the dates are correct, Tumblety was arrested July 27th, August 31st,[Maybe October 4th] October 14th, November 2nd, November 7th, and November 12th This means notheing of course, but considering the ripper killed between four and six woman over a three month span, Tumblety seemed to be real active around the time of the murders. Hours after the Nicholes murder, twice the week leading up to the Kelly murder. July 27th was not to many days befor the Tabram murder, and October 4th was just days after the double event. I believe I read something about October 14th in connection with the ripper murders. I know that this is just me being me, but the arrest dates just seem odd. Maybe Tumblety's odd behavior around the time of the murders was enough reason for the police to bring him in for questioning
Your friend, Brad |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1527
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 06, 2005 - 1:02 pm: |
|
Hi Joe:
Again I have to question your idea that Hughes-Hallett's military command in an Irish regiment posted in India had much to do with his attitude to or knowledge of Fenians. Certainly, as you have established, he was a Protestant and a conservative, thus would be temperamentally and politically more in line with the Orangemen of Ulster than to the Irish Catholics and the idea of Home Rule for Ireland.
I think if we look at the actual quote from Vanity Fair and consider it against the timing of his political career, the comment about him being opposed by the "Irish brigade" has, I think, more to do with his time in politics than with the bombings of the earlier 1880's, when presumably he was in India.
The biography that Jeff found stated, "First elected for Rochester in 1885 and sat until he accepted Chiltern Hundreds in March 1889." The Vanity Fair write-up on Hughes-Hallett, published 18 December 1886 stated:
"By profession he became a gunner, but he took to politics. . . (he) was returned as a Member for Rochester which he wooed, not merely by political speeches, but by dramatic recitations and performing dogs. . . He is a Tory to the backbone, and his cheer has often encouraged the Irish Orangemen and brought down upon himself the scowls and muttered imprecations of the Irish Brigade. . ."
All the best
Chris George
(Message edited by ChrisG on June 06, 2005)
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
See "Jack--The Musical" by Chris George & Erik Sitbon
The Drama of Jack the Ripper Weekend
Charlotte, NC, September 16-18, 2005
http://www.actorssceneunseen.com/ripper.asp
|
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 513
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Monday, June 06, 2005 - 2:54 pm: |
|
Dear Frank from Toronto:
Not to drag out the point too long, but when you say.."how would we feel if we, as heterosexual males, were not allowed to 'perform' with women? We'd be extremely angry, wouldn't we?"
I guess we would....but I'd do all I could to try and alleviate that problem,as you no doubt would,without going in that alternative direction. Our brains are wired that way. I could pretend and actually physically go through all the motions of what gay peeps do,albeit with a 10 gauge shotgun to my head,but it wouldn't be in earnest and I would not consider it a substitute for a woman...[I don't believe I just said all that! Don't show this to any of the women here...]... But, Tumblety and his boyfriend,the 20 year junior to him, Hall Caine,did have an affair. They were in earnest,as the phrase from that time went, in reference to homosexuals. They dug it the most being together and we have letters to prove it.
Frank, I was just making a joke before about the 3 ways of "telling if someone is gay in Philly..".
But in all seriousness,I don't understand why it is such a point of contention as to Tumblety's sexual preferences. In real life terms, that was his bag and business...In Ripperological terms, it seems to have become an issue of importance because some people feel,as I believe Mr. Fido did or still does, that a gay person,as Tumblety's actions show that he was,either full or part time,couldn't kill women. Thats simply not true.
I respect your opinion and your posts and understand what you are trying to convey. Lets just leave it this way...you see a possible conflict on Tumblety's sexuality being determined and I don't.
Thanks for the reply....
{ps. How could you forget Joe Flaherty and Andrea Martin and Cathy O'Hara from your Toronto [great city for comedians] list !!! Shame on yer !
HowBrown
|
Malta Joe
Detective Sergeant
Username: Malta
Post Number: 103
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Monday, June 06, 2005 - 3:16 pm: |
|
Thanks for your good wishes, Glenn. Tumblety admitted he had sent a "dagguerotype" of himself to his uncle in England, and you're probably right about him storing other photographs of himself. But the particular photo I'm searching for would be of his police mug shot. There is a specific "Rogues Gallery" police mug shot book that I know of which might have Tumblety's photograph in it. It's just a matter of us getting lucky in the hopes that it has been preserved over the years.
CB, I liked reading your post. Thanks, and no it wasn't too long! I wasn't doubting you when you said that Tumblety was arrested after Hutchinson came forth. (I believe that was the probable sequence of events, as well.) It's just that I was wondering if maybe you read something which I missed that may have confirmed this. Sorry if you perceived this as being humbled. Believe me pal, I wouldn't think of trying to humble a man from Florida. Your race tracks in that state are 100 times better than what we have out here in Northern California! I'd like to hear your opinion sometime on why you think it was announced to the press on Monday night Nov 12th that Hutchinson was being escorted around Whitechapel by two policemen in the hopes of detecting the man who Hutchinson saw with Kelly. I've got some thoughts on that, and I'm wondering if yours are similar. If this Monday night search for Hutchinson's man was true, why would the police want it hampered by media attention?
Chris, it's always good to hear from you. Your first point you made on Sunday's post that we'd learn so much more if we could trace HH's military career more precisely is so true. Until we learn more, I can't buy into any presumption that HH commanded a British Artillery Division in Northern Ireland and later in Southern Ireland while being headquartered in India. I'm more inclined to think he "paid his dues" by serving in India earlier in his military career. Burton for example was in his 20's when he was ordered to serve as an officer in India in the espionage field. But I do have another reason on the back burner why I think HH's miltary ties would enhance his ability to detect people who supported the Irish cause. I'll have it for you by tomorrow. Take it easy.
Joe |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1529
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 06, 2005 - 4:58 pm: |
|
Hi Joe
Thanks for that. I will look forward to what you are going to come up with next. Also wish you luck in the quest for that elusive photograph of Tumblety, something that has occupied me at various times as well, with no success so far.  I have a good feeling about it though.
Actually reading the Vanity Fair piece and interpreting the satire of the statement "He is a Tory to the backbone, and his cheer has often encouraged the Irish Orangemen and brought down upon himself the scowls and muttered imprecations of the Irish Brigade. . ." the writer is, I believe, actually conjuring up the scene in the House of Commons that can still be seen on C-Span today, with at that time in the 1880's the scowls and muttered imprecations of the opposition Liberals and Home Rulers complaining across the aisle about Hughes-Hallett.
All my best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
See "Jack--The Musical" by Chris George & Erik Sitbon
The Drama of Jack the Ripper Weekend
Charlotte, NC, September 16-18, 2005
http://www.actorssceneunseen.com/ripper.asp
|
Malta Joe
Detective Sergeant
Username: Malta
Post Number: 104
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Monday, June 06, 2005 - 6:48 pm: |
|
CB, the Oct 14th violation by Tumblety came two days before Emily Marsh's encounter with the tall moustached man who was suspected of sending Lusk the kidney. This was probably the "Ripper Event" you were trying to remember. It's something how Marsh's man and Hutchinson's man was well-known for "keeping his head down" wasn't it? Your last post chronicled the events of Nov 14th-19th really well. Good work.
Jeff, that was interesting stuff you had on Warren + Ireland. When you dig, you dig deep! Chris, that Vanity Fair article seemed to have both political and military vibes. I can see now how some people may take it solely politically though. I'll have that additional HH tidbit I promised you very shortly. |
Malta Joe
Detective Sergeant
Username: Malta
Post Number: 105
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Monday, June 06, 2005 - 7:19 pm: |
|
I've learned more about these private London clubs recently. An English historian of these clubs answered some questions I had for him. He told me that the process that gets initiated for an outsider to gain access to one of these clubs really hasn't changed over the centuries. An outsider like Tumblety would have needed to get two club members (a 'proposer' and a 'seconder') who would submit an application form into the club-secretary's office. The form would display the applicant's credentials which would be needed for him to obtain consideration for guest status. (In Tumblety's case, his paperwork would be forged as usual.)
The proposer and the seconder would have had to have been club members for the previous two years, and they would have had to declare that they've known the applicant for a number of years as well. An election committee would either accept or reject the application for guest status. I feel Tumblety achieved this guest status position in The United Service Club in the summer of 1888. There is a further and more complicated process that was explained to me on how a guest can become eligible for an election into club membership. This wouldn't apply to Tumblety, for I doubt he even attempted to obtain anything beyond guest status.
My focus is on Tumblety's 'proposer' and 'seconder'. Who were these men? Since it's the United Service Club, these two men would have had to have either been current or retired military officers. And since they were working with Tumblety, they would also have had sympathies to the Irish cause. HH wasn't fooled by this espionage. He had it all figured out by the time the George Yard murder occurred. His Oct 8, 1888 Reno Gazette article sounded like he had Tumblety perfectly pegged.
But where do you think HH would have gone to dig up the dirt on Tumblety's 'proposer' and 'seconder'? Not to the police. HH had no faith in them, and he even ridiculed the CID in the American press. Do you think HH would have gone to Parliament to look into the possible subversive careers of military officers? No, HH would have gone to the military to obtain the the history of these officers in question. Everything seemed to have been accomplished by HH very quickly and efficiently. He was still in a position to get the military ball rolling to carry out an investigation into these associates of Tumblety. I'll stop now Chris, but you can see where I'm coming from with this. To me, HH's military background shouldn't be dismissed in detecting a Fenian or Radical plot, because in this case the plot involved military officers.
Cool stuff, ain't it?! It has a little bit of everything. The plotters really seemed to have wanted the Liberal candidate, Arthur Chandros, to take HH's Parliament seat. There is so much that needs to be learned and verified though! So long! Joe |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Chief Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 687
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 06, 2005 - 9:19 pm: |
|
Hi Joe,
Boy, I return to work one day and find fourteen additional comments on the thread since I put my last one down!
A thought has crossed my mind about the two gentleman at the club who recommended Tumblety. Yes, they may share his Irish / Fenian sympathies, but is it not possible they are being forced into pushing his candidacy? What if Doc T. had sex with these gentlemen, and he actually used this to blackmail them into helping him.
This is not impossible. In the 1920s there was a con-artist named Sidney Fox who had genteel pretensions, and who was a homosexual. He did pick up a relationship early in his career with an elderly soldier, but it became known to the authorities - and the soldier's reputation was smashed. [Later on Fox would kill his mother in an insurance murder and get executed for it.] Closer in time was the still odd story regarding the military hero General Sir Hector MacDonald. Sir Hector distinguished himself in the Victorian mini-wars in Africa (he led the final charge against the Khalifa's forces at Omdurman). He had been made military commander at Ceylon, but left the post in 1903 to return to London to answer certain allegations. While on the way back, when he was in a hotel in Paris, he blew his brains out. His suicide was quickly attributed to his being overworked, but it soon surfaced that he had been the subject of a rumor campaign that he liked to sleep with little boys.
Although Tumblety would have serious problems if he had threatened blackmail, any army people he was doing it with would have further to fall. After all, Tumblety was a foreigner, and could always return to the U.S. Not so any British military men who were shown to be sodomists.
Homosexuality was a constant issue regarding the military (it still is - look at thirty year old Monty Python sketches, and how often military men are shown to be gay). It actually was not so difficult. One thing that the British military of the day were commented upon was that they liked to wear a lot of perfume. Almost as much as many women liked to wear. A few years back, I read a biography about General Douglas Haig (the Great War commander in chief). Haig had that habit of pouring scent on his uniforms when on manouvers. But it was explained that there was so little chance to have the time to properly bathe one's body, the scent of perfume was needed to hide body odor. But the public was basically unaware of this, and just noticed the odd combination of perfume and military officers.
When the time comes about the photograph, let me know. But keep your eye out at any stores that specialize in those "Carte de visits" that were the subject of the "Tony Pastor song". Obviously Tumblety would have had such photos available to pass around - because they were an advertisement for his magnificent self! In particular, keep an eye out for any where he is wearing a funny uniform (he was supposed to have been in a picture wearing a German/Prussian uniform at one point).
Best wishes,
Jeff |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 597
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 07, 2005 - 2:09 am: |
|
One factual point for those who may not be familiar with the House of Commons. the pic in Chris George's post above (as I am sure he is aware) is of the MODERN Commons chamber. The one designed by Barry and used in Victorian debates was destroyed in the London Blitz in 1941.
The appearance of the Chamber is broadly similar, and the arrangement of opposing benches ("collegiate" style) the Speaker's chair and the table of the House has not changed. But the CHARACTER of the room has, I think.
Just a point of clarification. The general discussion is fascinating.
Phil |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1531
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 07, 2005 - 8:17 am: |
|
Hi Phil
Many thanks for this point of clarification about the chamber of the House of Commons as it would have been in the 1880's. There are a several views that might be worth looking at --
The British House of Commons in 1834 -- This print was issued to mark the destruction of the House of Commons by fire on October 10, 1834.
House of Commons by Angel Dominguez -- an illustration for a children's book but gives an idea of the Victorian House of Commons.
Modern House of Commons floor plan
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
See "Jack--The Musical" by Chris George & Erik Sitbon
The Drama of Jack the Ripper Weekend
Charlotte, NC, September 16-18, 2005
http://www.actorssceneunseen.com/ripper.asp
|
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 907
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 07, 2005 - 10:00 am: |
|
Hi Chris and Phil,
Thanks for the bits on the Commons, particularly the illustrations. I have been reading a lot of Hansard lately and have developed a bit of an interest in Parliament. Recently I managed to catch the Queen's Address and was intrigued by the pageantry.
Dave |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 07, 2005 - 1:52 am: |
|
Hi Joe,
Do you think that the medical man the articles mention was Tumblety? It seems to me that Newspapers in America begin running stories on Tumblety the same day.
I do not know why the police would leak the fact that George would be roaming the streets with the police trying to identifiy the man he saw with Kelly. Why would they alert the ripper? It does not make sence. I believe that Abberline thought that GH was telling the truth. Maybe they already thought they had the ripper. Maybe it was a public relation move. The american papers already had Tumblety's name by the 19th You would think that the local papers also would of had Tumblety's name. Maybe the leak on the 12th was an attempt to draw local attention away from Tumblety. I am just grasping at straws. I am interested in your opinion!
The Sanfrancisco papers reported that, Chief Crowley was asked to send a handwriting sample, and all the information about Tumblety. I believe the request was made on the 23rd of November. They must still of had some interest in Tumblety.
Your friend, Brad |
Frank Cassano, Toronto
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, June 06, 2005 - 5:37 pm: |
|
Howard:
I haven't forgotten about Joe Flaherty, Dave Thomas, et al - believe me! I just didn't include them in my original list because I wasn't sure that any American who lives outside of the Great Lakes area would even have heard of SCTV - not to mention any non-North Americans. It's great to see that a non-Canadian can appreciate the old show. It definitely had its moments, and was very unique for its time...still is! In fact, it would have been something to see the old cast do a send up of all of this Jack The Ripper nonsense...suspects, victims, witnesses, etc. Imagine John Candy impersonating Tumblety - with a big, curly moustache, a jar containing a preserved female organ, and a top hat?! Or, Eugene Levy doing Ostrog, Kosminski or Chapman (the way he did Igor in Dr. Tongue's 3-D House of Horrors!)? Or, how about Martin Short doing Pruitt - always throwing himself in the lake to kill himself but never quite succeeding? The possibilities are endless! That would have been a riot.
Frank C
|
Restless Spirit
Detective Sergeant
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 64
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 07, 2005 - 1:02 pm: |
|
Hi Howard,
Even though I am reluctant to accept Tumblety as the best suspect yet for reasons that I listed in previous posts, I do feel that his sexual preferences should be considered an important point when it comes to this suspect.
It is possible that Dr. swung from both vines (bi-sexual)in other words. Maybe he was fighting the side that preferred men, he may have been unhappy with this side of his life, and tried to change by visiting prostitutes. His supposed inability to get aroused and or perform could have possibly sent him in a rage leading to murder etc, etc.
There are so many maybe's and I think untill we learn more about Tumblety we can only guess, or suppose.
To sum up, although I do not (maybe wrongly) consider him as good a suspect as most, I do feel strongly that his sexual preference should be considered an important part of discussions on his viability as Jack.
best regards
Restless Spirit
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 606
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 07, 2005 - 1:21 pm: |
|
David - so far as the State Opening of Parliament is concerned, this isn't the thread to discuss it. I'll open another in the Discussion forum. You might be interested.
Phil |
Malta Joe
Detective Sergeant
Username: Malta
Post Number: 106
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 07, 2005 - 6:33 pm: |
|
Hello CB,
The account of the medical man who was arrested and released which you spoke of sounds like the story of the doctor who was arrested by Detective White at London's Euston station. That doctor had just disembarked off a train which came from Birmingham. The arrest occurred on Saturday afternoon Nov 17th, but it was reported in the newspapers the following week. H.M. Smith, the Minister of Marine at Ottawa was in London during this time period. He informed the Head of the Marine Dept in St. John's, New Brunswick that this arrested doctor was Tumblety. He also stated that the police had begun surveillancing Tumblety's Birmingham lodgings five days earlier. This time frame would approximately encompass the Nov 12 - 17 period.
What I'm driving at with all of this is that a scenario can be deduced if Smith's report of Tumblety's arrest at Euston was accurate: Hutchinson came on the scene on Monday Nov 12th to give a description of the man he saw with Kelly. A dispatch was immediately sent to Birmingham to arrest Tumblety at his lodgings. Then the press was fed a diversionary story that action will be taking place on the streets of Whitechapel tonight. "We're taking Hutchinson around the district tonight to find the man he saw with Kelly."
Did you notice how we never read about a press man reporting that Hutchinson was actually seen on the streets of Whitechapel that evening with escorting policemen? It just seemed to be a diversionary tactic to draw attention away from the Birmingham action that evening. You're right CB, if Hutchinson was truly being escorted through Whitechapel then there would be no sense of creating a media circus and alerting the Ripper. Good talking to you!
Jeff, I just read your last posting. I never really thought of it that way before. A thing that can be said in favor of this thought of yours is that Sir Richard Francis Burton was responsible for exposing a homosexual brothel in India which involved British soldiers. This caused a backlash which prematurely shortened Burton's career. That probably ticked him off. The Sept 30, 1888 United Service Club document which you brought forth was written with a lot of personal contempt by Burton. Was the goings-on in the United Service Club bringing back the memories of some angering days he had in India?
The place which I think has stored the mug shot photos has no e-mail address listed! I have to use snail mail to contact them. I'll try my best and let you know what happens. This may take awhile! Bye! Joe |
alex weir
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, June 09, 2005 - 3:19 am: |
|
Glenn
'Sexual "evidence" are seldom seen in cases where sexual serial killers have indulged in mutilation of their victims. It is all about fantasies, and the mutilations actually acts as a replacement for actual sexual activity, from what we know so far. Not finding any signs of sexual activity in mutilation cases like these, actually is precisely what we could expect.'
I assume your facts are true about mutilation acting as a sexual fantasy, however can we work backwards from the mutilation to say that this points to him being heterosexual?
If that is the case then are we are saying that all mutilations must be a sign of heterosexuality? I'm sure this is not what you meant. Perhaps the only thing we can glean from this is that you we cannot deduce either way what his sexuality was, given there was no other evidence of activity. As a side issue, I still have a problem with why sexuality comes into this if his motives were not sexual. I agree, if they were, then we would gain something from discovering which way he was leaning. But assuming he was not doing it for the 'normal' reasons, is this a wild goose chase? What happened to the good old motives of hate, power, sadism, opportunism or just running out of medical samples? Perhaps he was doing it as a twisted dare? I know there has been a lot of research into criminal behaviour of this sort where we analyse behaviour and life histories to discover rules by recognising patterns etc. (and much of it is very useful) but we may recognise patterns where there are none (as for example in the stock exchange). ie is it possible to study the actions of abnormal human beings (in the loosest sense), apply the logic and thought processes of a normal human being and draw meaningful conclusions?
Thanks for the response
Alex
|
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 08, 2005 - 1:46 am: |
|
Hi Joe,
Thanks for your responce! Have you visited the Tumilty family genealogical project home page? There are a few Tumblety's listed. They mention Dr. Tumblety and the casebook. If you have been to the site, is it usefull, or a wast of time?
Your friend, Brad |
Malta Joe
Detective Sergeant
Username: Malta
Post Number: 107
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, June 09, 2005 - 10:53 pm: |
|
Hello CB,
I just browsed through that web site you mentioned. I don't think a hooker would feel too comfortable working that "Tumilty Street" in Bootle, England. That'd be pretty spooky. It's not a bad web site, and I'm glad you told me about it. You can find these little Tumblety nicky-nacks here and there. The Abraham Lincoln Store in Chicago has a copy of Tumblety's first autobiography in its files. There is also a night time "Ghost Walk" in Hamilton, Canada that tells of Tumblety storys.
Joe
|
Alex Weir
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, June 09, 2005 - 7:07 pm: |
|
Glenn
I've read a few of your articles and you seem to know what your talking about. On a slightly different issue, I recently saw a programme by the author of the 'Jack the Ripper: first American Serial Killer' who stated that there were a series of identical mutilations of prostitues on the same island that Tumblety visited after 1889 when he was there. Does anybody know if this is true (or if it is old hat)and if so wouldn't this add to the case against Tunblety?
cheers,
Alex |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 713
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 12:10 pm: |
|
Hi Alex,
The island in question would be Jamaica. Later research so far has shown that the claims in the press of there being Ripper style murders there were highly exaggerated. Only one murder at all arguably similar to the Ripper case has been traced, and they caught the guy who did it (needless to say, it wasn't Tumblety).
I think if you do a search here for "Jamaica" you should turn the old threads up.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3547
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 12:25 pm: |
|
Hi Alex,
"however can we work backwards from the mutilation to say that this points to him being heterosexual?
If that is the case then are we are saying that all mutilations must be a sign of heterosexuality? I'm sure this is not what you meant. "
Oh no, absolutely not. I don't think we can establish such a fact conclusively. There do exist cases where homosexuals have murdered people of the opposite sex, although it is not common.
I think the question of Tumblety's sexuality might be a red herring here; there seems to be indications on that he had homosexual contacts but he had also been married, so I assume that would make him a bisexual anyway.
People are psychologically different so I wouldn't make too hasty conclusions regarding that particular issue.
As for motives, I can not rule out hatred, power domination etc.
However, I do feel that the murders were done from some sort of compulsion -- sexual or based on hatred or both. The mutilations and the other injuries on the victims are too extreme for only being done for the cause of collecting human organs -- too much unnecessary hacking and mutilations on parts of the bodies that are not relevant for that purpose (take the cuts in Eddowes face, for example).
All the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Alex Weir
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, June 11, 2005 - 5:51 pm: |
|
Hi Glen,
I'm starting to get addicted this, but here goes anyway. You mentioned:
'The mutilations and the other injuries on the victims are too extreme for only being done for the cause of collecting human organs -- too much unnecessary hacking and mutilations on parts of the bodies that are not relevant for that purpose'
which is an excellent point, but what if JRT had thought of this. This sounds like a long-shot but perhaps he wanted to cover up his true intentions of collecting organs, so to put the police off his scent, after removing the organs he needed, he committed these bizzare mutilations to make it appear that the culprit was by a crazed lunatic. This would explain why he seems to have gone to such lengths to cut and lacerate unusual parts of the body. If it was just the uteri that were missing, perhaps someone may have pointed the finger at him or some other doctor (wasn't grave robbing for medical purpose endemic in those days?)
This might be clutching at straws, but would it not be wise to credit many criminals with high intelligence in some spheres (perhaps I should say 'cunning') such that they can anticipate the reaction of the police etc.}? I think we would be wise to assess the actions of JRT through these eyes (I'm not saying that you don't), as some people on this site generally assume he was unintelligent - which is exactly what he wanted us all to believe.
I will try to resist replying but your thoughts are appreciated.
Alex
(thanks Dan, I thought I was on to something there for a second)
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3593
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 15, 2005 - 12:42 pm: |
|
Hi Alex,
You're right... that is a long-shot. 
Of course nothing can be ruled out with certainty, but I find that scenario improbable considering the risks that were involved on the murder sites, with close time frames and the risk of being spotted. The unnecessary risks we see in the Ripper murders I prefer to attribute to a partly disorganized and low intelligent offender, but that's just my personal opinion.
I think there are simply too much risk involved.
And yes, Casebook is addictive...
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on June 15, 2005)
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
c.d.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 15, 2005 - 2:24 pm: |
|
If the police at the time had any real evidence or suspicion that Tumblety was JTR, I don't think he ever would have made bail (even though it was on a lesser charge). At this point, after the brutal attack on Mary Kelly, I think they were in panic mode and would have kept him in jail on some pretext regardless of his legal rights while they did a further investigation of his whereabouts at the time of the murders. Even if they decided to adhere to the letter of the law and release him, you would think that they would have had a number of people following him. Yet he got away. And finally, given the fact that he jumped bail, if it was coupled with a strong belief that he could have been the Ripper, I think that their wire to the New York Police would have read "Holy S---! We think Jack the Ripper is on his way to New York. Detain him at all costs (which the New York Police could have done on some pretext, at that time, constitutional rights be damned) until detectives from Scotland Yard arrive." Judging by the response of the New York Police, I think Scotland Yard simply stated that Tumblety was a suspect and requested that they keep an eye on him. I think it was just to cover their butts if it turned out that Tumblety actually was the Ripper. To me, the actions of Scotland Yard show that he was never a serious suspect. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
