|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Archive through March 13, 1999
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Specific Suspects:
Contemporary Suspects [ 1888 - 1910 ]:
Tumblety, Francis:
Archive through March 13, 1999
Author: Dr. Phil Moser
Tuesday, 16 February 1999 - 04:59 pm |        | I have just completed downloading all 35(so far) pages of your enlightening discussions concerning Tumblety. I have read the same source materials as you, including my own copy of his pamphlet ramblings and the New York papers. Having worked in the field of human psychopathology for 35 years, I can only conclude (unscientifically) that Tumblety "feels" right, more than any of the other suspects. I am looking forward to new evidence as it appears. Just when you think the well is dry, something seeps out!
Thankyou for contributing to my expanding file of Tumblety data. |
Author: Rotter
Tuesday, 16 February 1999 - 06:10 pm | | | Everything about him sounds right to me except...are there killers who would only strike for a few months out of a fairly long life? |
Author: Bob_c
Wednesday, 17 February 1999 - 04:24 am | | Hi Paul,
Just to put in my 2 cents.
If you have read Harrison's book, there does seem to be evidence of Maybrick being involved, but unfortunately you have to have an idea of what it would mean to be a successful Liverpool cotton merchant in 1888 with a family, and then :
hopping insanely for a few hours per public transport to London, seeking, chopping up whores, getting the blood off, getting back to Liverpool per public transport, getting home to a place full of butlers and servants, writing a diary for posterity about it and all the time being badly poisoned by arsenic or strychnine while not arousing the slightest suspicion that anything curious at all could be going on.
There is not the slightest evidence that Maybrick visited, or even knew the streets of, Whitechapel at that time. We don't even know if he visited London at all at that time. We know that he suspected Florrie of having a lover, but I can't find any evidence anywhere that he KNEW who it was at that time, Brierly was a regular guest at the house that year.
Take a look just at the watch story. Maybrick wore a gold watch chain nearly as thick as your arm. Would anybody seriously suggest he would then sport a small lady's watch on the end of it? The Victorians would have had him put away as being obviously unsound of mind.
Poor old Tumblety has been just as maligned. He was a liar, a charlatan, a boaster, a nut. He was a woman hater and probably a perverted homosexual, or at least homosexual. He was above all a coward. People who knew him well described him always as non-violent. In all the times he got caught for almost anything in the book, one thing is missing.. not a single word anywhere, at any time, that Tumblety actively seriously physically attacked anyone, or seriously threatened with a weapon. Had he have done anything in the slightest in this direction, it would have been like the rest of his acts, just for show. He was described as being 'too rabbit-hearted' or 'had only nerve enough to put molasses and water together in a bottle and label it as medicine, the greatest nerve being the label.' Not the man who repeatedly risked his life in the crowded streets of London.
Tumblety got nicked for almost everything he did, as he was in London his presence was known, so as was his record. Indeed, at that time he was just as much a suspect as Kominski, Pilzer, Druitt and all the others, under suspicion only because of the frantic efforts to catch Jack causing the frailest bit of evidence to get blown up to be 99% proof. It is held against Tumblety that he flew back to the US because of the suspicion against him of being Jack. That is very possible. Had I been him, innocent or not, I would have done the same. His fleeing is no evidence whatsoever that he was Jack.
Regards
Bob |
Author: Rotter
Wednesday, 17 February 1999 - 04:59 am | | | It's true, why would you stay in London to be accused of being Jack the Ripper if you had the means to escape? Particularly if you hated the English anyway. But the police apparently did follow him to New York, and until that is cleared up I would think he must stay on the suspect list. But I am not convinced. He is, however, just so interesting! Not to mention he has left more of a trail than some of the others. |
Author: Bob_c
Wednesday, 17 February 1999 - 05:35 am | | Hi Rotter,
Tumblety, you mean. Yes. That is clear.
He is interesting. And he was interesting then, just like other flamboyant nuts. I didn't intend to prove that Tumblety is innocent, however, just that he wasn't a very likely candidate.
Of course he could have been involved, or even wielded the knife, but write those letters? No... not Tumblety, even if we ignore the handwriting. Tumblety was noticed everywhere because of his stature. No one ever suggested that Jack was exceptionaly, or even just plain, big.
If Tumblety was Jack, then Stride was not a ripper victim, for example. Tumblety would have been noticed and described by Schwartz.
Tumblety was, as far as I know, non-drinking and non-smoking. Does anyone know more?
Regards
Bob |
Author: Rotter
Wednesday, 17 February 1999 - 05:48 am | | | Yes, you are exactly right about Stride, unless Tumblety was the taller pipe smoking man (but then Tumblety was a nonsmoker,right? ) but I don't think he was involved either. When you remember that people were turned in for carrying a black bag or having a foreign accent you can understand why people were agog at Tumblety. But still, there are the arrests and the pursuit. I'm trying to find out more from the 1890ish press accounts but no surprises. NYPD records also no help as virtually nonexistant (HQ has moved twice since then and everything was just tossed). |
Author: GH
Wednesday, 17 February 1999 - 10:08 am | | | Regarding Bob c's comment on Tumblety's non-violence 'not a single word anywhere...', what about the following from the New York World of 19 November, 1888 - 'One day a brief history of the man appeared in Frank Leslie's paper, showing him in his true colors. A few evenings later Editor Ralston, of that journal, was enjoying a tete-a-tete with a friend in the Fifth Avenue Hotel cafe, when in popped Dr Twomblety. The latter immediately accused the editor of writing his history and followed up the abuse by assaulting Mr Ralston. The doctor was arrested, but discharged the next morning, as Editor Ralston refused to prosecute.' |
Author: Bob_c
Wednesday, 17 February 1999 - 11:04 am | | Hi GH,
I've awaited that. Therefore my words 'actively seriously physically attacked anyone, or seriously threatened with a weapon'.
This assault on Ralston was, as I wrote later 'Had he ... done anything in the slightest in this direction, it would have been like the rest of his acts, just for show', not worth the word assault, except in the legal sense. Ralston suffered no ills from the attack, or that would also have been in the New York World. He didn't press charges. He knew why he didn't.
Remember that this newspaper, like many others, ridculed and provoked Tumblety and otherwise proved themselves his enemy. It is to be expected that they would blow up any little incident against him if they could, as here.
Let's be honest, if you were hounded by a newspaper, ridiculed and made a laughing stock of in public by this Editor and you got the chance to bash him on the nose, wouldn't you be tempted to? Would that make you suspect for Jack or brand-mark you as a vicious person?
Tumblety did suffer a number of wrongs himself, including false imprisonment, but was never recorded as being violent. That he was evidently often the author of his own misfortunes doesn't change that.
The man was impossible but I still have a little bit of sympathy left over for him, imposter and liar that he was.
Regards,
Bob |
Author: GH
Wednesday, 17 February 1999 - 01:21 pm | | | The assault was obviously sufficient to warrant his arrest. However, since when have assaults and a history for violence been a prerequisite for being a killer? The fact is the opposite, many killers of history have not been noted for violence, but have, until they have been caught, regarded as harmless in that sense. |
Author: Bob_c
Wednesday, 17 February 1999 - 01:35 pm | | Hi GH,
Just what I said. Bashing Ralston's nose didn't mean Tumblety was Jack. To get arrested for assault is dependant on a number of things. How loud the victim squeals, who the victim is, then how serious the assault and last, but not least, who the assaulter is. If you were Tumblety, you had pretty bad cards, mate.
Tumblety being, or not being violent doesn't mean all too much, that is only one part of the whole. Reading Stewart Evan's book has not in the slightest changed my opinion, although the book has been well researched and there is a lot of very useful information in it. No one has to be of my opinion either though. We all have our favourits. |
Author: Rotter
Wednesday, 17 February 1999 - 01:54 pm | | | I don't know the details of the incident but knowing the WORLD any incident would make a headline and if the reporter could get Tumblety arrested that would make a better headline. It must have been something trivial, but any physical contact could result in an assault arrest. Also, it doesn't reveal an early propensity for violence, it shows that under extreme provocation he only gives the offender a slap in the face. This, after he has supposedly committed a series of horrific murder/mutilations. |
Author: Bob_c
Wednesday, 17 February 1999 - 02:04 pm | | Hi Rotter,
We talk as one..
Best regards,
Bob |
Author: Rotter
Wednesday, 17 February 1999 - 02:30 pm | | | Not so fast. Don't you believe the Ripper was the Rippers? |
Author: Bob_c
Wednesday, 17 February 1999 - 04:14 pm | | We talk as two...
Regards,
Bob |
Author: Rotter
Friday, 19 February 1999 - 01:03 am | | 
Chief of Detectives Thomas Byrnes is the man to see about Tumblety in New York. I thought you might like to see the Chief. |
Author: Rotter
Friday, 19 February 1999 - 11:07 pm | | This probably doesn't have much other than trivia value but here is the book by Dr.Lispenard, mentor to the young Tumblety.
AUTHOR Lispenard, W. C.
TITLE Dr. W.C. Lispenard's Practical private medical guide : adapted to the use of every individual, (male and female,) mostly original, and compilations from eminent American & European medical authors.
PUBLISH INFO Rochester, New York : published for the author, 1854.
DESCRIPT'N 222 p. ; 18 cm.
NOTE Stereotyped by J.W. Brown, Rochester.
SUBJECTS Medicine -- popular works -- 19th century.
OTHER TITLES Practical private medical guide.
OCLC # 22963946. |
Author: adam wood
Tuesday, 23 February 1999 - 11:06 am | | I have a copy of Tumblety's 1866 Civil War Broadside for sale.
Anyone interested please email me with an offer.
Adam |
Author: adam wood
Thursday, 25 February 1999 - 07:58 am | | Sorry folks: should have included the full title...
TUMBLETY, DR. FRANCIS. Few Passages in the Life of Dr. Francis Tumblety, the Indian Herb Doctor, Including His Experience in the Old Capitol Prison, to Which He Was Consigned, with a Wanton Disregard to Justice and Liberty, by Order of Edwin Stanton, Secretary of War, A: Also Journalistic and Documentary Vindication of His Name and Fame, and Professional Testimonials Respectfully Inscribed to the American Public. Cincinnati: Published by the Author, 1866. |
Author: Dr. Phil Moser
Thursday, 04 March 1999 - 04:42 pm | | | Hmm, I just bought a copy of this same pamphlet for $92 off Alibris rare books; I have seen copies for up to $250, although one sold on Ebay recently for about $100, so that is the going rate, at least until the booksellers realize that Tumblety is now the prime suspect. |
Author: Joseph
Saturday, 13 March 1999 - 09:50 pm | | Hello everyone,
I have three questions for Mr.Evans.
I've just finished reading your book, it was very interesting and, well put together.
My first question is: Why did Eric Barton
contact you,how did he know who you were,and why you would be interested in his letters?
You mention a Col.C.A. Dunham,and his Lt. Col.
viewing Mr. Tumblety's collection of wombs.
Has this Lt.Col. ever been identified and
questioned?
And lastly,what became of Mr. Tumblety's
above mentioned collection?
Best Regards
Joseph |
|
|
|
|
