|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 February 14, 1999
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Specific Suspects:
Contemporary Suspects [ 1888 - 1910 ]:
Tumblety, Francis:
Archive through February 14, 1999
Author: Mike Fellows
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 04:12 pm |        | I find Francis Tumblety one of the least likely for the following reasons;
Tumblety was a man of leisure whilst in the East End therefore why would he restrict his activities to weekends, surely this points towards someone who worked for a living during the week.
The Littlechild letter clearly states that Tumblety was ''among'' the suspects and not as claimed in the program the prime suspect.
The letter also states that Tumblety was ''not a sadist, which the murderer undoubtedly was.''
The letter goes on to say that it was believed that he (Tumblety) had committed suicide. Surely if Littlechild believed he had identified the killer wouldn't he have taken more interest in his movements. It is known that Littlechilds Secret Dept were in contact with their American counterparts therefore the fact that Tumblety was back in the USA at this time has little relevance.
One of my major objections to Tumblety is the fact that the Ripper has for some time been described via witness accounts as being approx 35 years old. Tumblety would have been 55 in 1888, also on the night of the double event could a 55 year old with a known heart condition have been able to cover the ground from Berner St to Mitre Sq.
Tumblety is also portrayed as having an intense interest in the Irish problems of the time, his beliefs being in line with the Fenians etc, is it therfore likely that he would target an Irish woman as his final victim and inflict such hideous mutilations.
My final objection being that Tumblety apparantly left a gladstone bag in a hotel, among its contents were materials of an obscene nature, would someone who had avoided detection by over 6000 police be so negligent. |
Author: Leon
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 04:13 pm | | Regarding Tumblety, I dont think too much importance can be attached to the witnesses accounts portraying the Ripper as being in his 30s (Tumblety was 55 in 1888). A lot of them totally contradict each other and there is evidence that the Ripper wasn't ever witnessed.
Scotland Yard placed so much importance on Tumblety that they sent officers to follow him to the U.S. America had all but named him as the Ripper in most newspapers and there is a whole lot of other evidence making him a prominent suspect. |
Author: Ian Preece
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 04:13 pm | | I'm sitting watching a TV show ("Secret history") which "presents conclusive evidence" about who-dun-it. Interestingly, it raises the "American suspect" thread again.
Eric Barton, a bookseller in London, recently closed up his business and sorted out some old letters. Among them was one from a Special Branch officer called Littlechild, who was responsible for operations concerning the Feenians (a precursor of the IRA, but run mainly by Irish-Americans.) He names a Dr. Tumblety (possibly Twumblety), probably from Rochester, NY (the UK police also sent an officer to SF to seek information from his bankers and the local police.)
He may well have been the American who made requests for various organs to various medical examiners in London... principally, uteruses (uterii?), one of the bits most commonly missing from the Whitechapel victims. He was arrested for "acts of gross indecency" two days before the last killing, but never made bail... he was followed as far as NYC, and then vanished - as far as Scotland Yard were concerned. The US press of the day, however, seem to have been more persistent.
He seems to have been a snake-oil salesman, and was implicated in at least one death by poisoning... but he always seems to have been one step ahead of the law. He seems to have had a bitter hatred of women, and is reported to have had a collection of preserved uteri in his office, to "illustrate his lectures".
When he died, the nuns attending him made a list of his belongings which included "two cheap imitation gold rings", among several expensive pieces of gold and diamond jewellry - similar to those reported missing from one of the victims.
It's suggested that the reason he was't pursued further, was that the police were embarrassed that their best suspect had got away, so they covered him up. |
Author: Vic Tambling
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 04:13 pm | | I have just read the Casebook Interview with Stewart P. Evans, and would like to make the following points:-
How is it that Littlechild could spell a difficult name like 'Tumblety' and not be able to spell the name 'Monro'? After all, you'd think he remeber how to spell the name of his boss correctly.
'Tumblety' was homosexual - he was caught in acts of 'gross indecency' with men - not female prostitutes.
The first edition of 'The Lodger' contained extracts from the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885 - most of the sections published in 'The Lodger' dealt with the law as it applied to females/young women.
Nowhere in the annals of so-called 'serial killers' has a homosexual 'serial killer' been responsible for murdering/mutilating females.
Perhaps if the so-called 'Littlechild Letter' was forensically examined, we would be able to ascertain if it is genuine or not - and why would Sims the RECIPIENT of the so-called Littlechild Letter ask Littlechild whodunnit?
According to Evans, Sims wrote an article in 1911 - two years before the alleged Littlechild Letter in which Sims claimed the Ripper was AN AMERICAN DOCTOR. Who is kidding who (or trying to)? Ripperologists have been taken for another ride with this one... |
Author: Cliff Korsedal
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 04:14 pm | | First of all, thanks for all you're doing and have done for those of us who hunt the elusive Jack. Oddly enough, I am a student of both Jack the Ripper and the Lincoln assassination, which I have been researching for 40 years. Imagin my surprise when the name of Francis Tumblety came up as a suspect in the ripper murders. As you know, Dr. Tumblety was arrested and held as a possible accomplice in Lincoln's assassination. Only one study of the assassination, The Web of Conspiracy (1959) by Theodore Roscoe, mentions Tumblety.
According to War Department records, a month after the assassination, Dr. Tumblety was arrested in St. Louis and held for a while in the Old Capital prison. A report to Asst. War Secretary C.C. Dana by Col. John P. Baker, Provost Marshall General of Missouri, states:
"I have the honorto forward herewith, in complliance with your telegram of this date, Dr. Tumblety, alias Blackburn. All his papers had been carefully examined previous to the arrival of your order, but nothing was found in them tending to implicate him with the assassination. Tumblety's papers and his own admissions show that he has tramped the continent from Quebec to New Orleans, in the character of an 'Indian Herb Doctor'; has gained an extensive notoriety as an impostor and quack; has been compelled to leave several towns and cities in Canada for his rascality and trickery, and is being continually importuned and threatened by those he has deluded and swindled. Tumblety's principal associates in St. Louis have been one J. W. Blackburn, his assistant in the 'medical profession,' and one Oregon Wilson, an artist. There appears to be nothing against them, except they belong to a class of adventurers that encumber and prey upon society."
There is no record of the interrogation of Dr. Tumblety, and he was eventually released.
The Rochester Advertiser, May 9, 1865, carried the following piece:
"The Telegraph reports from St. Louis that J. J. Blackburn alias Dr. Tumblety has been arrested charged with complicity with Harrold [David E. Herald] in the assassination of President Lincoln. The only Dr. Tumblety that we ever heard of was one who lived in Rochester in his younger days and who, taking up the practice of medicine, went elsewhere to astonish the people. He was a tall dandified individual, sported a heavy cane, and was followed by a hound which bore in appearance the same relation to the canine race that his master did to the human. He was a quack all over and nothing else. His name is Tumblety,and we were not aware that he had taken the name of Blackburn. It may be that he has changed his name. We had lost track of him altogether till this assassination scheme brought him to the surface."
I believe there is much to be found on Tumblety's movements when he returned to the U.S. from London. The New York police inspector, Thomas Byrnes, who tracked Tumblety for a time, authored an interesting book titled, "1886 Professional Criminals of America." Unfortunately, as this was written two years before Tumblety came to New York, there is nothing about the supposed ripper-type murder in Brooklyn.
I have been fortunate enough to acquire a copy of Dr. Tumblety's first booklet, "Kidnapping of Dr. Tumblety," [sorry, I haven't learned how to underline yet], published by the author in 1866. This is the booklet referred to on p 198 of the Evans-Gainey book, and from which they quote extensively. Tumblety published it himself, and although its wrapper is chipped and loose and the pages fragile, the overall condition is good.
Of interest is a statement of the good doctor on page 37 wherein the writes: "There is no disputing the fact, that the knife is a source of immense mischief to the human family." Alas, he was referring to injuries caused to patients by inept surgeons, whom he likens to butchers. Still, the quote caught my eye.
Of greater interest is the description he gives of himself, quoting from a military pass he was issued in 1865: "Age, thirty-two; height, six feet; eyes, blue; complexion, fair; hair, dark; occupation, physician." (p. 15).
Finally, we now know for certain that a photograph of Tumblety does exist, or at least did exist. On p. 51, he tells of his acquaintence with a certain "Captain Anderson, of the royal navy," and relates that, "On one of his trips, the Captain took my daguerreotype to my uncle in England, who has since died, in order to satisfy him that I was still in the land of the living." This appears to have occurred sometime after the start of the Civil War, placing it about 1861-65.
The Library of Congress maintains an enormous collection of daguerrotypes and glass-plate negatives dating from the 1860's. Many are indexed by name. I have contacted someone I know there and he's going to see if he can find any reference to Tumblety in the photo archives. |
Author: Billy Bond
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 04:14 pm | | As one of the other members of the conference pointed out, Tumblety was evidently homosexual, and serial killers very rarely cross the line of sexual preference in choosing their victims. When they do, they are almost always the "disorganized" type of killer, while the Ripper was certainly an "organized" serial killer.
Also, theories about what kind of people would be likely to commit these crimes were quite different in 1888 than they are in what I hope are today's more enlightened times. Tumblety was a flamboyant eccentric -- which is why he came under suspicion (and he evidently did). But today, research indicates that serial killers are usually the "nice guy next door," the bachelor who has few friends, and keeps to himself. |
Author: Anonymous
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 04:15 pm | | I have very briefly browsed the essay which I found whilst surfing the Net looking for infomation which I could use for my BA History dissertation on Jack The Ripper.
Whilst I have not had time to read the essay carefully, I felt that I had to contact you to inform of some details I have come across regarding the Freemasonry conspiracy theory.
First of all, I do not hold with Sickerts story, believing it to be a concoction of lies, and believe that he admitted to this(although I can not remember in which book I read his admittal), and find the idea of a conspiracy hard to swallow. I do however believe that 'Jack' did have Freemasonry links.
Whilst it is true that 'Juwes' was dropped from English masonic ritualism in the early nineteenth century, I contacted an address in the USA and was informed that 'Juwes' was used in AMERICAN rituals until well into the 1890's. Whilst it is also true that the Goulston Street Graffiti can be seen as merely anti-semitism, we have to ask whether or not semi-illiterates would have misspelt 'Jews' in such a way, and whether or not an American with a link to freemasonry was Jack the Ripper.
I am another of those who believe that Tumblety was responsible for the Tabram,Nicholls,Chapman,Eddowes (and possibly Kelly) murders (possibly with Kidney murdering Stride, and a slight belief that Barnett murdered Kelly), and believe that Tumbelty's masonic links in America (he had been a mason whilst living in the USA,I cannot remember which lodge/society as I do not have my notes with me!) together with numerous other factors* place him as the most likely Ripper.
*There are numerous pieces of circumstancial evidence that point towards Tumblety committing the above murders (unfortunately other historians,researchers and 'Ripperologists' have 'found' evidence for other suspects), the most interesting piece is that, as we know, amongst the artefacts removed from Eddowes were two cheap reproduction rings. Upon Tumblety's death his personal inventory revealed that amongst several extremely expensive pieces of jewellry (some valued at well upwards of stlg100),bonds and other proofs of his wealth, were TWO CHEAP REPRODUCTION RINGS.
Coincedence, or was this a serial ripper keeping a treasure from one of his victims?
As stated before, I do not believe in the Netley/Gull/Sickert freemasonry conspiracy, but believe that the fact that 'Juwes' was an American ritual word points towards an American mason, i.e. Tumblety.
Furthermore, on the subject of Druitt and Juwes, we could mess about with the word all day and come up with the names of every Ripper suspect that there has been. In a final attempt to remove Druitt from the case, it must be noted that he did not have any anatomical knowledge, as he was not a doctor of medicine, but recieved a university doctorate for the study of ENGLISH.
Whilst I do have a very open mind upon the subject, and am also researching the possibility of Oswald(e) Puckeridge or George Chapman (Kloswowski) being the Ripper, I feel that it is about time that Druitt - a doctor of english, not a medical student or a doctor of medicine- was laid to rest. |
Author: Brian Morris
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 04:15 pm | | | Personally I believe Tumblety is the Ripper. While it will never be proven beyond a shadow of a dought it does fit all the pieces nicely which no other suspect does. He fits the description and the profile of who Jack the Ripper was. One last thing really sets the case for me. When he died he had two cheap womans rings on him that could not be explained. I believe if this story is true that those were the rings taken from one of the women. Since we know that serial killers often keep momentoes, this fits with the profile as well. |
Author: JH11997
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 04:16 pm | | Mr. Tumbltey was indeed the Ripper. According to the people that cared for him at the time of his death, he died with three small (femine) silver rings on one finger. These were identical to the ones worn by the last victim.
If you check "free-mason" records you will discover he was a practicing member. Also, he was very well connected due to his affection for men, which started after he discovered his wife worked in a brothel. I believe Mr. Tumbltey was allowed to "escape" due to the simple fact he would probably name high ranking officials, maybe even persons of the Court as lovers. Remember he was arrested for distributing pictures of men and boys performing various sex acts.
Beyond any doubt he was the Ripper. I challenge anyone to prove a better case against any other suspect. |
Author: Remi Pach
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 04:16 pm | | | It seems to me that the americanisms (such as "boss") one can notice in some of the letters allegedly written by Jack the Ripper could help support the theory according to which Francis Tumblety was indeed Jack the Ripper. |
Author: Stewart P. Evans
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 04:16 pm | | a. The question of whether Tumblety was in custody or not on 9 November 1888 is addressed fairly fully in the latest edition of our book. I presume you have read this. The first point I would make is the fact that if he wasn't considered a first-rate suspect then (i) Scotland Yard would hardly have pursued him to New York, which they definitely did, see all the published references, and (ii) Chief Inspector Littlechild would hardly have referred to him as a "very likely" suspect many years later. The offences they could prove against him, those of gross indecency, were misdemeanours carrying a maximum sentence of only two years imprisonment. The Police could not have held him for nine days (until his court appearance on 16 November 1888) as they would had to have charged him and take him before the court within 24 hours of arrest (which they did not). Thus the Police were obliged to release him on Police bail for 7 days until they had gathered the full evidence to charge him and take him before the Magistrate. This is fully explained in our book. As you know, Alex Chisholm advanced the rather controversial argument, which is now held by several others, that Kelly was not a 'Ripper' victim at all. Very unpopular with the conspiracy theorists. However, what is obvious is that, whatever happened, the Police regarded Tumblety as a strong suspect.
b. The links indicating that Dr Tumblety was almost certainly the 'Batty Street lodger' have also been fully gone into. I would refer you to the extracts I have sent to you. The 'Daily News' article of October 17, 1888, relates to the almost immediate Police refutation of the lodger story upon its publication. Obviously the Press were on to the fact that the Police had a good suspect whom they were searching for. In rebuttal they stated, via the Central News Agency, that the shirts were left to be washed, and not the property of a lodger. (Bearing in mind that almost every landlady in those days took in washing as a laundress to earn extra money). But this goes totally against the sourced story of the Batty Street lodger (i.e. the German landlady, Mrs Kuer, who could not speak very good English, and her neighbours who had been interviewed by the reporters). See the 'Daily Telegraph' article 'The London Tragedies' of October 9, 1888, for a possible origin of the Police story used to discredit the Batty Street lodger story. The fact that the suspect arrested in Bermondsey (an arrest later denied by the Police) was suspected of being the fleeing lodger from Batty Street and was an American. For the fact that the lodger was an American Doctor see the piece by George R Sims in the Yarmouth Independent of February 25, 1911. This is incredible, totally separate confirmation of the lodger story from a different source to the newspaper reports of 1888. It is obvious from the great similarity of the stories (occurred on the night of the double murder, lodger's return at 2 a.m. disturbing landlady, bloodstained shirt-cuffs, American, etc.) that we have the same landlady. Allowing for some misreporting and confused stories, the similarities are just too much for coincidence. With regard to the landlady telling Sims that she had recently (in 1908) seen the same American doctor practising in the north-west of London, this could easily be a mistake on her part as she had not seen him for 20 years (and then he had only been a lodger) although he may have resembled her old lodger.
c. The fact that Tumblety was homosexual (more probably bi-sexual as he had been married and is shown as a widower on his death certificate) does not militate against him being the killer at all. See the extracts I have sent to you on this point. The killer's exact motive was never known and there was no sign of any sexual activity at any of the scenes. Tumblety's known great hatred of women, especially prostitutes, his interest in wombs and abortion, and many other traits fit the profile of this killer perfectly. Also see our Secret History video showing the interview with a recognised psychiatrist, Dr Coid, who states that Tumblety is the right type. The 'old chestnut' that a homosexual would not kill women in this way was a weak argument originally offered against Tumblety by Martin Fido and Paul Begg, both of whom have their own axes to grind. You only have to see the extract from 'The Sexual Criminal' to see how false the argument is. Goodness me, it wasn't that long ago that being a homosexual was a prerequisite for being the 'Ripper' vide Druitt, Duke of Clarence &c.
Some of the points above redress points made against Dr Tumblety in your suspect profile, there is absolutely no doubt, and it is stated in more than one report, that it was Tumblety who the Scotland Yard men pursued to New York, and that there was already an English detective in New York watching him before the arrival of Inspector Andrews and his team. |
Author: Lars Anderson
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 04:17 pm | | | A few nights ago, I saw a TV show on The Learning Channel titled; Jack The Ripper. You basicly said everthing they said on the Tumblety case and a few more key points. One of which I would like to bring up. On the show they said at the hospital where Tumblety died, the nuns that were taking care of him, I assume, after his death, removed all of his personal belongings off his body. They mentioned a diamond ring, and a few other nice items. They then said that they removed 2 imitationor fake gold rings. I can not remember the name of the victim, but one of them had 2 fake gold rings taken by the Ripper at the time of her murder to possibly make the grissly killing look like a robbery attempt. It seems funny that a man like Tumblety who liked to wear fine close and trot around on beutifull horses with greyhounds leading the way would wear jewelry of this type. Everthing fits together too well for this suspect not to be the prime suspect in the Jack the Ripper case. |
Author: Daniel Ost
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 04:17 pm | | A check of the internet via Infoseek ("Find People") revealed the following numbers of people in the United States with the last name of Tumblety, or derivatives:
12 - Tumblety
0 - Tumuelty
0 - Tumility
0 - Twomblety
Interestingly enough, 10 of the 12 Tumblety's live in the northeast portion of the U.S., very near or within one hundred miles of Rochester, New York. |
Author: Jim Anderson
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 04:18 pm | | | According to a documentary I watched the other night on either TLC or TDC, they were convinced that Dr. Tumblety commited the murders. What caught my attention was the fact that after the police in London had him in custody, they let him go. The embarassment could have motivated the police to drop him as a suspect. |
Author: T. Price
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 04:18 pm | | After watching the program on The Learning Channel regarding Tumblety, I read the book by Evens "The First American Seriel Killer". I found several problems with Tumblety being the murderer.
1) The police would have watched him closly regardless if there were any murders or not because he was a quack and a fraud doctor, and an irish sympathiser. Thats why there would be a "large dossier" on him.
2) He was hassled by the police in many places not just London, because he was a fraud, a homosexual, and very flamboyant. And a kingsized flake.
3) He published books on his activities and thoughts and would have a platform to write about his "hatred of women". But he never did.
4) He seeked attention whereever he went and was very visable. One man is quoted in the book as having seen him all over Europe and the States. If thats true why is it so hard Scottland Yard to find him? From 1893 until 1903 he was in Rochester. Ten years without moving around yet Evens says he can't be located.
5) How is he linked to 22 Batty street? I saw no evidence that links him there.
6) The only place outside of the Littlechild letter that Tumblety is associated with the murders is the US press. Is it possible he set that up himself to gain fame for murders he didn't commit? Is it possible the that press hated him because he was such a flake and a fraud. In the late 1800's one couldn't trust the press anyway because of "yellow journalism".
7) The only time he is linked with a collection of uteri is after paper reports of missing uteri from the victoms. Also no one else mentions any such collection. While he was arrested for his homosexual acts how come the police didn't find anything that could link him to the murders. Did they even attempt to search? Probably not.
8) Littlechild may have wanted to link Tumblety to the murders to discredit Irish sympathisers.
9) The Scottland Yard detectives who went to the US never once indicated that they were searching for Jack the Ripper. It has only been assumed.
Those are just some points that come to me as I read your page on the web. I think that Tumblety was probably a cowardly flake, quack, flamboyant homosexual herb doctor who the police hated and wanted to chase out of town. And they did and were glad when he was gone. |
Author: Stewart P. Evans
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 04:18 pm | | I would like to make the following comments in response to the points raised by T. Price-
1) The point here is that the police could not find Dr Tumblety, and when they did he was arrested. Yes, he was an Irish sympathiser and no doubt there would be much of this in his dossier, and no doubt mention of police suspicions regarding him for the murders which is why it would be nice to trace the dossier.
2) I do not understand the source for this comment. He was arrested in Montreal in 1857 for attempting to procure the abortion of a 17 year old prostitute, Philomene Dumas. He was on the run in 1860 for manslaughter in St John. In 1888 it is known that Scotland Yard pursued him to New York because of their suspicions of his connection with the Whitechapel murders. Hardly 'hassling him because he was a fraud, a homosexual, and very flamboyant', albeit these were some of his character traits.
3) He did not mention his hatred of women in his books, but it was well-known and commented upon by different sources, including Littlechild.
4) He did not always seek attention, especially when he was on the run! His 'disappearances' are commented upon. The man who saw him all over Europe and the States knew and recognised Tumblety. It would be difficult for the police to locate him if they did not have a good photo of him and if he was operating, as he often did, under an alias, and he was always on the move. Scotland Yard could not find him in New York in 1888/9 and returned to England (they couldn't stay there permanently). He was not wanted by the US authorities and emerged later in 1889. We do not know his movements for the following years, other than he lived in both Rochester and St Louis.
5) The linking of Dr Tumblety with 22 Batty Street is fully explained in published sources. No, there is no positive evidence linking his name with that address, but we proved almost beyond doubt that the lodger at 22 Batty Street was an American doctor, and it was Tumblety who was arrested the following month and was suspected in connection with the murders. It seems unlikely that there would have been two American doctors being sought. What T. Price must remember is that very little of the contemporary official records on the investigation have survived, and any researcher has to resort to Press reports of the time, some of which, as we know, were unreliable.
6) Tumblety was associated with the murders, by description, in a press report in Wales, as fleeing the country suspected of the murders. It is the very fact that his identity appears to have been kept from the English press that makes him even more worthy of suspicion. The US press would no doubt have got their information from the NYPD who had no reason to keep quiet about him. As we know, Inspector Andrews of Scotland Yard did go to New York seeking Tumblety, mentioned in many press reports and by Guy B.H. Logan in his 'Masters of Crime' who states that Inspector Andrews pursued an American Ripper suspect to the US but 'his mission was a failure.'
7) What other genuine 1888 Ripper suspect has EVER been linked with a collection of uteri? Tumblety was too cunning, as can be deduced from his previous exploits, to be found in possession of incriminating items, linking him with the murders. No suspect was ever found to be in possession of anything linking him with a murder. In these pre forensic science days, with no such thing as blood classification, such a linking would be almost impossible to prove anyway. And a doctor, quack or not, could have many excuses for having blood on him or any of his possessions. The police certainly would search with regard to anyone they arrested.
8) This comment is obviously totally invalid. If Littlechild wanted to link Tumblety to the murders to discredit Irish sympathisers then he would hardly have done it in a PRIVATE LETTER 25 YEARS LATER! Litlechild never went public with this information, and modestly gave it as his idea on a 'very likely' suspect for the Whitechapel murders. It is this very fact that proves that Tumblety was a genuine 1888 suspect for the murders, and ex-Chief Inspector Littlechild's status and importance makes this a very relevant fact. This is not just another suspect plucked out of thin air to provide material for yet another Ripper book. (I thought I had already explained all this).
9) All the evidence, and it IS STATED, in the US and Canadian press, indicates that Andrews was pursuing Tumblety. This is corroborated by the information in Littlechild's letter. There is absolutely no doubt that Dr Tumblety was a suspect pursued by the Yard.
I would just like to add that the very next serial killer of prostitutes in London, just four years later, was arrested, convicted, and hanged. He was Dr Thomas Neill Cream, a wealthy, flamboyant, quack doctor, who was also a great traveller. His parallels with Tumblety are quite amazing. He was born this side of the Atlantic (Scotland), moved with his family to Canada. Practised in Canada and the USA, carried pornographic material, and regularly crossed the Atlantic. In fact most of T. Price's adjectives fit Cream also - 'cowardly flake, quack, flamboyant.' Dr Tumblety is not so easily dismissed from the frame. |
Author: Hawk
Sunday, 22 November 1998 - 11:40 am | | Well said Stewart, However, (Is'nt there always one?)I have a very large problem with the Batty St. lead.
1) Tumbelty was a foreigner, and although he made several visits 'in the more squalid' parts of the east-end he would not know it as well as a local.
2) I have a theory which I call the 'Ripper's Square'. A surprisingly high amount of murders, last known sightings, and abodes of the victims happen withen the 'square of these four streets: Hanbury, Wentworth, Goulston/Crispen, And Brick Lane.In other words,would he not look for his victim's where there were more of them?
3) It is my opinion that from his flight from Mitre square.He fled north on Goulston, towards Dorset et al.(Ripper's Square)
If he did in fact lodge at 22 Batty he would have had walk Aldgate High and Commercial, two of the main streets in the east-end. He would have almost certainly had blood on him. How could he have escaped detection with so many people around?
4) Also the article by Sims was dated 1911, How could he trust a little old lady that said her Lodger was the 'Whitechapel fiend'.It was over 20 years ago. Had she thought that at the time why did she not summon the police? Looking for her '15 minutes'? I know that the Yard had 22 Batty under surveilance but the whole thing does not make sense. |
Author: Bob_c
Monday, 23 November 1998 - 06:42 am | | Hello all,
just a small question. It is generally a ripper joke that the man had a cloak, blood-dripping dagger, top-hat and fiendish grin. Cloaks were indeed at that time not unusual. Maybe a silly point but:
Could e.g. Tumbelty have hidden the bloody results of his antics under a cloak? He (Jack) seems to have taken care to limit the dangers of getting splashed as he hacked and sliced. The autumn of 1888 'ushered out the coldest and wettest summer on record'. A cloak would then really not be uncommen.
Eyewitnesses have not, as far as I can find out, described a cloak on Jack, but who has really and certainly described Jack without any danger of error?.
Long coats have been described, but a cloak has the good property (for Jack) of hiding the hands and avoiding and hiding e.g. blood on sleeves etc, ideal if you fancy an evening up to the elbows in someone's guts and then get home without a howling pack of lynch-hungry monsters disturbing your stroll.
Tumbelty wasn't described by witnesses (as he was), so he could have worn a cloak. In any case, for me is Tumbelty more of a bet for the ripper as Joe Barnett.
Bob |
Author: The Viper
Monday, 23 November 1998 - 07:54 am | | I'm with the sceptics like Mr. Price on this one. The starting point for the case against Tumblety appears to be the letter to Sims dated 23/Sep/1913, some 25 years after the murders, by a senior police officer who on the surface appears credible as a source. But how much involvement did Chief Inspector Littlechild really have with the Ripper murders?
Prior to the publication of Mr. Evan's book "JTR, First American Serial Killer" Littlechild was unknown to me. So I began to trawl my Ripper bookshelf. From ten books published between 1965 (Odell) and 1994 (Sugden) which (a) were 'full length' publications and (b) contained an index, I found only three which mentioned his name. Begg contains literally a one-liner. Begg, Fido & Skinner have an eight line entry for him. The ultra-diligent Sugden has four mentions, all brief, with one mentioning the then future book of Messrs. Evans & Gainey, and another purely a x-reference.
As head of the Special Branch, Littlechild would not have been particularly well informed on the Whitechapel Murders. Most of his time would be taken up with the affairs of known or suspected Irish Republican sympathisers. Tumblety was a known supporter of this cause and it is almost certainly this which brought him to police attention initially. The fact that he was arrested for indecency offences and may have been lodging in the East End (I too am far from convinced about the Batty St. link) caused detectives to check him out re- the Ripper investigation. This was not unusual, hundreds of persons were investigated. When the investigation hit his Republican links doubtless this is when Littlechild was informed. Would he have been so otherwise? Was he informed about all promising suspects? I think not. When invited to comment on the case by Sims, Tumblety would be one of the few suspects of whom he had direct knowledge and was therefore a name which came easily to his mind.
Every few years one or more Ripper authors will latch on to the scrawl of an old police officer, usually written many years after the event. They investigate the named suspect and 'solve' the case on the back of it. The tendency to attach weight to the writings of aging police officers is in my view a mistaken one, and perhaps more so in this case than with, say Anderson, (though I attach little importance to his 'Polish Jew' theory either).
Please understand that I don't want to knock Mr. Evans. He is just one of a number writers to have taken this approach. He has made a considerable contribution to the case both in his book and within the pages of the Casebook.
APPEAL: It was seeing the lines upon which this discussion was developing which prompted me to attempt to start a general discussion point under 'Police Officers'. To keep this discussion relevant could specific agreement with or rebuttals of my ideas about Littlechild please remain here under 'Tumblety', and discussion of the value of police writings in general switch to the broader subject. Thanks. |
Author: Bob_c
Monday, 23 November 1998 - 09:43 am | | Hi, Viper.
Tumbelty had a known record of abnormality, i.e. he was known as being a nut even before he came to England. Agreed that the British Police were more interested in Tumbelty as terror activist (maybe) and sexual pervert (probably), but it is clear that suspicions of his being Jack was also being discussed.
Littlechild, even as special branch, must have been informed over Tumbelty and his (alleged) abnormalities in the sexual area. Jack had reached such 'fame'that any police department had interest. They knew certainly more than they said. Even if Littlechild and co. were not professionaly informed, which is very unlikely, they would have had access to much information over Tumbelty, when because of his other activities.
Of course the Sims letter was the start of our modern-day suspicion of Tumbelty, if you like, but at that time, he was almost certainly 'chalked up' as a possible, when just one under dozens.
I have not been able to make out if the SY-visit to New York served just a ripper suspect. The NYPD-remark about the ripper having been long caught if he'd have chopped up fallen Ladies in NY does seem to point to the importance of this as a JTR-visit, however.
Of note is the fact that no more ripper-like murders occurred after Tumbelty pushed off,(Coles Francis...etc. No, not Jack) but you can say the same about others. He, Tumbelty, was however described in the british press shortly after his escape as being a suspect.
Bob |
Author: The Viper
Monday, 23 November 1998 - 04:05 pm | | Hi Bob. Thanks for that. A few points to reply to here, if I may.
Lets take your last point first. Of course you are correct in saying that there were no more murders after Tumblety fled the country (copy-cat killings aside). But surely that is a pre-requisite for his remaining as a suspect long after the case was closed. Had there been any further Ripper murders in the East End shortly after Tumblety left, he would have been ruled out immediately. The Victorians recognised that a serial killer would not stop suddenly without a good reason. They assumed that he had died, been incarcerated in a hospital or asylum or had gone abroad. That is why suspicion remained against the likes of Montague Druitt and Aaron Kosminski too. The case of a suspect fleeing these shores is the least satisfactory of the explanations for the ceasation of the murders. One might have expected to see more killings overseas. There is nothing to link Tumblety to the Nicaraguan murders.
I’m afraid that I can see nothing other than surmise in your second paragraph. I agree that information would have been circulated around the yard but most of it would have been special reports etc. being input to the case. There would be no reason for the likes of Swanson to feed details of all suspects back the other way without good reason. I certainly can’t agree that Littlechild, heading up the Special Branch would be the least bit interested in one individual suspect’s sexuality (as you appear to suggest) until a link with the activities of Special Branch was established (i.e. Republican sympathies).
I agree with you in saying that Tumblety was chalked up as a Ripper suspect. No doubt this stems from his arrest for sexual offences. I don’t doubt also that he was considered sufficiently important to be followed to New York, though who knows how much of this was related to the Ripper case and how much to his Republican connection? We do know that the ‘American link’ was followed up. This link seems to have existed purely because of perceived Americanisms in some of the Ripper Letters, such as “Dear Boss” and “get buckled”. Even some of the rodeos in Buffalo Bill’s touring show were questioned! Today most students of the case seem to discount all those letters.
Finally the statement that the Ripper would have been caught if he had pursued his activities in New York was just a boast. I forget the source of it but I believe that the same remark was also made about the Paris Police.
Regards. |
Author: Bob_c
Tuesday, 24 November 1998 - 04:46 am | | Hi Viper,
Yes, you are right in both cases, but that is really what I was saying. Tumbelty was a suspect even then, only that Scotland Yard (SY) would have certainly also been involved. (Therefore CI Littlechild and special branch)
You can call it surmise, maybe it is, but it is also my solid belief that Littlechild and others in special branch must have had some considerable connection with the matter, it was all to big for just one PD to deal with and Scotland Yard would have been the same as today, fighting not only criminals but other police departments as well. To have caught Jack then would have been just as much a feather in their cap as it would be for us if one of us could do it now.
Certainly the matter was discussed by everybody, it was in the news and nobody could rememeber anything like it before, it was gory, frightening, almost unbelievable, so in private and in public everyone would have talked and discussed just like we do now. Littlechild and his contemporaries as well in private and on duty.
I think your point was that we shouldn't pay too much value to Littlechild's belief that he knew who JTR was (Tumbelty), while still not seeing that fact as any proof of Tumbelty's innocence. I concur.
One point that I feel worth mentioning, I have Irish blood in me (Father born in Bray, Ireland) and some of the Americanisms mentioned do have real Irish roots. 'Boss' is no way new in Ireland, and 'get buckled' meant originaly to get the belt (get punished) although I don't know what relation such expression had to the Gaelic.
Remembering how many Irish immigrants there were in America those days, it's not suprising that many so-called Americanisms came originaly from the green Isle. Maybe there's a specialist in Irish history among us who would care to comment.
Bob |
Author: Odista
Wednesday, 02 December 1998 - 10:09 pm | | Hello everyone,
I know I'm asking for trouble but I just can't resist.
I have some problems with Tumbelty as a ripper suspect. First concerns his possible homosexuality. It is psychological improbable that a homosexual serial killer would murder the opposite sex. Ted Bundy was a heterosexual; he killed young women. John Wayne Gacy was a homosexual; he killed young men. Has there ever been a case in which a homosexual serial killer murdered the opposite sex? I can't think of one.
The fact that Tumbelty was married is meaningless. John Wayne Gacy was married but his affections were obviously for the same sex.
Another problem is Tumbelty's age: 55. Most serial killers begin their careers in their mid to late twenties. It is very unlikely that a serial killer would begin his career at such an advanced age. Could any previous Ripper like murders be associated with Tumbelty before 1888? I haven't heard of any.
Another problem too is serial killers don't stop killing! Saying the ripper killings stopped after Kelly's murder because Jack traveled abroad is a ridiculous argument. If that were the case, then there should have been other ripper like murders where Jack had traveled too. Other than the possibility of Old Shakespeare, there were no ripper like murders in New York when Tumbelty arrived or in any other place he went to after 1888? Why not?
Also Tumbelty was not a local in Whitechapel. Jack had to be someone who either lived or worked in the area. Like sharks, serial killers have their favorite feeding ground. They will murder where they feel most comfortable. Of course there have been cases of traveling serial killers like Henry Lee Lucas but this is rare. The fact no other known ripper murders were committed elsewhere shows Jack did not travel anywhere. It is unlikely in the extreme to suggest that a man who had never killed before, traveled to Whitechapel from America, murdered some prostitutes, and then traveled back to America only to swear off murdering anyone ever again. I can't buy that scenario.
As far as the circumstantial evidence goes like the two cheap rings or Tumbelty's collection of uteri, it is just that: circumstantial. You could build up against of circumstantial evidence against almost any suspect. How do we know that the rings were in fact from Chapman? Is there any evidence of that they were? How do we know Tumbelty's collection of uteri wasn't just an unnatural obsession with motherhood? It would make more psychological sense for Tumbelty, a homosexual man, to wish he were a woman and collect items that would nurture that wish rather than being a serial killer collecting trophies.
I've said my piece and I eagerly look forward to reading future comments. |
Author: avala
Wednesday, 02 December 1998 - 10:53 pm | | Dear Odista,
Although I agree that Kelly was one of Jack's victims the homosexual angle does not play out.A number of gay men have killed women so that in itself would not disqualify Dr. T.
The age factor is generally true but again there are exceptions.The monster of Florence seems to have been 4 homosexual men,3 of them in their seventies and one in his 50's.
My main reason for ruling out the good doctor is that if he was indeed Jack,could he have resisted not telling the world,at least posthumously? |
Author: Bob_c
Thursday, 03 December 1998 - 08:32 am | | Hi Avala,
Perhaps he did (the cheap rings) tell the world posthumously!
Bob |
Author: Christopher-Michael
Thursday, 03 December 1998 - 04:17 pm | | My own reason for doubting Tumblety as a suspect is his physical appearance. I realise, of course, that height can be a variable thing, and a tall man might scrunch himself down to look smaller when speaking to a smaller woman. However. . .
When Elizabeth Darrell testified that she saw Annie Chapman speaking to a man outside of 29 Hanbury Street, she said that the man stood only a little taller than Chapman - who was all of 5 feet. Could Tumblety, the strapping six-footer, really have taken that much off of his height? If we accept Darrell's testimony as an eyewitness sighting of the Ripper (or, at least, of Chapman's killer), then I find it very unlikely he could have been the good doctor.
My major sticking point, however, is Tumblety's mustache. When it is described, it's noted as being large or luxurious and prominent. The drawings of Tumblety reproduced in Evans' and Gainey's excellent book show him with an enormous mass of whiskers flourishing below his nose. This is entirely at odds with any "eyewitness" sighting of the Ripper or of men in the company of the victims, and is, for me, a stumbling block to accepting the quack as the Ripper.
Is there evidence anywhere to indicate that Tumblety didn't have his exuberant facial foliage in the autumn of 1888? When he was arrested by the Met, did they take a physical description of him and has it survived, or was it lost along with the large folder on him Scotland Yard was said to have?
Christopher-Michael |
Author: avala
Thursday, 03 December 1998 - 09:47 pm | | Dear Bob and all,
I would imagine that Tumblety would have left a rather more obvious clue to his identity as Jack the Ripper.Perhaps a (melo)dramatic confession addressed to the world via the New York Times! |
Author: Bob_c
Friday, 04 December 1998 - 04:14 am | | Hi Avala,
O.K. I do have to agree. Don't forget, however, that Tumbelty was a nut. Who knows what he was really capable off!
Bob |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Friday, 04 December 1998 - 02:13 pm | | I have been reading the posts on this site since the November 22 entry and feel that some comment is necessary (expected even?). I would refer readers back to all my previous posts, my Casebook interview and my book. In these many of the current queries have already been answered. At the risk of becoming repetitive I will address some yet again. It is important for any theorist to remain as objective as possible, and stick to the known facts. He should refrain from 'inventing facts' and try to be plausible. Paul Begg, who also looks at a genuine suspect, (Kosminski) in his excellent book shows how the facts should be used, not bent.
Starting with Hawk's post of November 22, the following should be noted. Clark says, "I have a very large problem with the [22] Batty Street lead. OK, the first thing that should be noted is that the whole 'lodger' story, which emanates from TWO sources, one in 1888, the other in 1911, is a theory advanced by myself. It is not crucial to Tumblety's status as a suspect, and this should be noted, it merely, if correct, reinforces the case against him. However, the 22 Batty Street story figured prominently in nearly all the newspapers of the day in October 1888. It has never been presented in any other book on the 'Ripper' despite its prominence and apparent relevance. Why? That is easily answered, because it has been ignored as irrelevant, and relating to no known suspect. Obviously, on finding a genuine American suspect I re-checked all the news reports for any stories which may have related to an American. The 1888 stories indicated that the fleeing lodger from 22 Batty Street was an American. The 1911 story not only stated that the lodger was an American - he was an American doctor! Please re-read my previous writings, if you are interested enough in the full story.
"...he would not know it [the area] as well as a local." Of course not, Clark. But anyone can walk the streets, alleys and courts, and soon become familiar with the whole area. I know, I've done it. Certainly a good enough knowledge of the area to have committed the murders, and escape, is soon acquired. As was pointed out by the contemporary police, the victims would probably have chosen the location for their own demise themselves. They would have their own less frequented spots for a 'knee-trembler' and would use them often. A confidential police commissioner's report of October 25, 1888, [Ref- MEPO 3/141, ff 158-163] actually states - "I do not think there is any reason whatever for supposing that the murderer of Whitechapel is one of the ordinary denizens of that place."
You also say, "He would have almost certainly had blood on him." Yes, but probably only on his hands, sleeves (perhaps), and cuffs. He wiped the blood off his hands with the piece of Eddowes' apron, and by gaslight in the early hours of the morning any small amount of blood there would not be easily seen. As has oft been stated, there were many on the streets with blood on them anyway, such as slaughterers, butchers, and, yes, even doctors.
"...why did she [Mrs Kuer, the landlady at 22 Batty Street] not summon the police?" She DID Clark, haven't you read the book?
I will finish now in order to get this posted, and follow later with answers to the further queries.
Stewart |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Friday, 04 December 1998 - 04:05 pm | | Well, here we go again. First may I thank Bob_c for his useful and thought-provoking input.
Now to The Viper! Yes, the starting point for the case against Tumblety is Littlechild's letter to Sims in 1913. But, of course, this led to the discovery of all the CONTEMPORARY news reports about Tumblety as a Whitechapel suspect which had been missed by 'Ripper' researchers up until then. So, although the letter was 25 years after the murders it DID REVEAL A CONTEMPORARY SUSPECT. Prior to this Littlechild's importance had only been recognised in the 'A-Z' and by that ever perspicacious Mr Begg! Indeed, Paul highlights the fact that Littlechild, whose men were no doubt much employed in the East End on observations, watching for terrorists and anarchists, including Irish sympathisers, who were rife in that area. Other than that you would have seen no references in your Ripper books to Littlechild as he had not before been connected with any comment on the murders, other than their importance. He is, however, well-known to Police historians as the first head of the Special (or Secret) Branch from 1883 to 1893 when he retired.
As to Littlechild's 'involvement' with the Whitechapel murders, well I think we should rather be looking at his knowledge of the murders. He was a departmental head (Special Branch) at Scotland Yard from 1883, right through the period of the murders, and up until 1893 when he retired. He was one of five Chief Inspectors heading departments along with Chief Inspector Swanson who headed the Whitechapel murders inquiry. Also, in 1885, Littlechild, Swanson and Abberline all worked together on the Cunningham/Burton case for which they all received rewards. So they were, in fact, used to working together. It would be a nonsense to suggest that the Chiefs at the Yard, especially Littlchild and Swanson, would not have discussed the case together. Especially in view of its huge prominence and importance.
Further to the 'Batty Street link' comments I would emphasise that this story is given in TWO SEPARATE sources 20 years apart, but see my previous for more on that.
I would take something of an exception to the comment, "Every few years one or more Ripper authors will latch on to the scrawl of an old police officer, usually written many years after the event. The tendency to attach weight to the writings of aging police officers is in my view a mistaken one." I would hardly describe the Littlechild letter as that. And I am sure that Paul would agree with me on this point, after all the valid and important work he has done on Kosminski. You ARE entitled to your opinion, but I would venture to suggest that it may require some revision. How can it be that the thoughts and writings of policemen who were there at the time carry no weight? They knew more than we ever will, and although they may have made some errors, or drawn some wrong conclusions, everything they said is relevant and should be studied.
I have researched this case for over 33 years, I photographed the extant murder sites in 1967, and followed every fresh development of both fact and legend. Even so, I never envisaged writing a book on the subject, until I found the Littlechild letter. What should I have done? Ignored it? Thrown it away? No, it revealed a genuine and previously unresearched suspect and had to be investigated. With Paul's and my GENUINE suspects I feel a little affronted that we should be ranked alongside some of the proposers of frankly ridiculous suspects who litter the field. However, I do thank you for the appended kind comment.
What Littlechild revealed, very modestly, was that - "...amongst the suspects [i.e. he was a contemporary suspect], and to my mind a very likely one [i.e. in Littlechild's opinion he ranked as 'very likely'], was a Dr. T..." There is no bragging here that HE KNEW the identity of Jack the Ripper, merely his stated OPINION, and this not broadcast in any book for public consumption, but in a private letter to a distinguished author, playwright and journalist. Again I say, Littlechild was there THE WHOLE TIME, he knew more than you or I ever will.
I'm off now to pop some tablets, I'll return soon! But thanks for the interest.
Best Wishes,
Stewart |
Author: The Viper
Friday, 04 December 1998 - 05:18 pm | | Stewart. Thanks for that response to my comments on the Tumblety. Most grateful too for your answers on McCarthy and Miller's Court which I have just read.
Please don't take offence at the comments you quote back at me - you'll see that my second posting acknowledged that Tumblety was taken seriously as a contemporary suspect.
I would just like to come back on your comment, "With Paul's and my GENUINE suspects I feel a little affronted that we should be ranked alongside some of the proposers of frankly ridiculous suspects who litter the field". Just to point out that I was not trying to compare the relative merits of any suspects, or to promote a new one. (To my eyes we are still a long way from naming any convincing suspect).
On the merits of the later writings of police officers I think for the moment we must agree to differ. The topic does exist on the Police board so perhaps it could be continued there sometime. Regards. |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Friday, 04 December 1998 - 05:29 pm | | Well, Viper, here we go yet again! In your next post you say, "One might have expected to see more killings overseas. There is nothing to link Tumblety with the Nicaraguan murders." Quite right, nor is there anything to link him with the Jamaican ones in December 1888. However, as I have stated before, Tumblety was on the run after December 5, 1888, his whereabouts not known. He was known to visit both the Caribbean and Central America, and whilst that is not proof, it is sufficient to ponder. Also, serial killers have been known to stop, or have a long break before they kill again, in fact it is quite common. There were long breaks between the Yorkshire Ripper murders, and some, like Bela Kiss, just stopped and disappeared, believed to America. A traumatic event such as arrest and release, mere suspicion, ill-health, or many other things may cause a cessation or break.
If my hypothesis regarding Tumblety is correct, how do we know that he did not kill again? He was a great traveller, always on the move. These were the days of the 'Wild West' when the mutilated remains of many a white person were found in the Indian country. Part of the Indians' killing of enemies involved the mutilation of the bodies and opening up the thorax. Were the bodies always found? We may conjecture either way forever, a definitive answer is simply not there.
Regarding Tumblety's sexuality, the objection that he would not attack women as a homosexual is proven to be false. See the published references to many such cases, some listed in my book. He was probably bi-sexual anyway, and certainly a misogynist. With no known motive for the 'Ripper' murders it is interesting to note that NO SIGN OF SEXUAL ACTIVITY WAS EVER FOUND. Indeed, the womb appeared to be the focus of attention in at least three cases, Nichols (killer probably disturbed after opening abdomen), Chapman (womb taken away) and Eddowes (womb again taken away.
The 'American link' may be traced back earlier than the 'Dear Boss' letter, which I do not believe was written by the killer. It is mentioned first by Coroner Wynne Baxter in his summing up at the Chapman Inquest where he mentions the 'American Doctor' wanting to purchase wombs. In fact that probably gave birth to the idea of using Americanisms in the 'Dear Boss' letter. However, this does not alter the fact that in Tumblety we have a genuine American suspect. I know that Phil Sugden feels that Tumblety was the American Doctor referred to by Baxter, albeit not the 'Ripper.'
Odista mentions Tumblety's age as a factor. This is belied by the fact that WE KNOW HE WAS SEXUALLY ACTIVE IN LONDON IN 1888, he was charged with the indecency offences! Also there are many older serial killers known Albert Fish in his 60's, Chekatilo (spelling?), Kuerten, Gein etc. Possibly the best witness, Mrs Long, whose sighting was in daylight, described the suspect as 'over 40.' I am also aware of the objections regarding height, but have addressed these before. One person's 'a little taller' may be a couple of inches, whilst another's may be around nine inches! I know how frequently witnesses get the height wrong, I have taken thousands of witness statements.
An example I may quote relates to Martin Fido! In 1990 when we were researching the Peasenhall murder together, Martin, Keith Skinner and I went to interview a 94 years-old man, Herbert Denny, who had known the victim and suspected murderer. We spent over an hour with Herbert in his cottage at Peasenhall, interviewing him. A few weeks later when speaking of him Martin remembered him as 'very tall.' Herbert was 5 feet 4 inches tall, much shorter than all three of us, yet Martin remembered him as 'very tall,' and 'towering over us.' There are unknown variables also. The most often preferred height in the witness descriptions has been around 5 feet 7 inches. Tumblety's height was 5 feet 10 inches, the difference a mere 3 inches. This is easily lost by stooping to talk, and Chapman may even have been standing on the doorstep of 29 Hanbury Street, whilst the suspect was on the footpath (he had his back to Mrs Long as she passed on the same footpath).
Arguments regarding suspect sightings are vague at best, many do not even relate to a viable sighting. It is totally wrong to dismiss any suspect merely on the basis of description. Regarding Tumblety's moustache, well one illustration of him dates to 1866, the other probably to the 1870's (going on the uniform he is wearing) and was published in 1889. As far as 188 is concerned the only real descriptions of him is when he got off the steamer La Bretagne in New York on December 3, 1888. In the 'New York Daily Tribune' - "He wore a long English cloth ulster (overcoat), without a cape, a derby hat, and carried an umbrella and two canes tied together." In the 'New York World' of December 4 he is described as - "...a big, fine-looking man...He had a fierce-looking mustache, waxed at the ends; his face was pale and he looked hurried and excited...He wore a dark blue ulster, with the belt buttoned. He carried under his arm two canes and an umbrella fastened together with a strap." When I first showed Phil Sugden Tumblety's pictures, whilst still writing the book, Phil exclaimed, "Hutchinson's suspect!" immediately noting the likeness to the Illustrated Police News drawings of the man described by Hutchinson. I read nothing into that, nor did Phil, it was merely the noting of a resemblance.
Stewart |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Friday, 04 December 1998 - 06:43 pm | | Hi Viper,
I accept what you say regarding the comparative merits of suspects, it was just that you seemed to lump them all together in one generalisation. I would say that whether a suspect is convincing or not is a purely subjective premise. The evidence in regard to all the serious ones, including Tumblety, certainly falls far short of proving them to be the killer.
I find your interest and comments both stimulating and incisive. And your wish to get to the basic facts for a better understanding of the crimes is commendable.
Obviously the later writings of the various police officers do vary in value and accuracy. No-one would deny that. However, Littlechild does also provide us with valuable new information, not least of all the names of the journalists believed at the Yard to be responsible for the 'Jack the Ripper' correspondence.
The arguments regarding the various policemen are lengthy, contentious and, in many ways, impossible to resolve because of lack of hard information. So, as far as your invitation to the Police board is concerned I would like to decline. That does not mean, however, that I will not answer specific questions, if I can, about the police and their procedures.
I would like to say also, that absolutely no offence whatever has been taken as regards your own comments. Probably I came across as if I had, but that is just my way, as many who know me would tell you. In the heat of the fray...
I look forward to future exchanges/questions, and again thank you for your interest.
Best Wishes,
Stewart |
Author: avala
Friday, 04 December 1998 - 09:01 pm | | Greetings Stewart,
In one of your latest postings you mentioned the Managua and the Jamaican murders.I find these possible leads quite fascinating and I would like to know where I could better acquaint myself with all the available details?
I would also like to take this opportunity to thank you for your kind efforts in educating us upstarts to the facts of the case.You and Mr. Begg are true beacons in murky seas!
Best,
avala |
Author: Odista
Friday, 04 December 1998 - 10:22 pm | | Hello Everyone,
I just wanted to clarify some points that I had made in previous post and introduce some other points:
1) Tumbelty’s age: I never questioned that Tumbelty was sexually active at 55. I had said that it was unusual for a serial killer to begin his career at such an advanced age. Yes, there have been serial killers who continued to kill well into old age, Albert Fish being the most popular example, but most serial killers begin their careers between the ages of 25 and 30. I would also note that witness’s descriptions of Jack describe a man between the ages of 28 and 35. The witness’s age bracket is psychologically consistent with what we know about serial killers.
2) Tumbelty’s motivation: It is most important to remember that the Ripper’s crimes were "sex" crimes. They were not motivated by hatred or religious reasons but by lust. Although hatred or religion could certainly be a secondary reason, they wouldn’t be a the primary reason. Jack could have used religion as a justification perhaps, he might believed he was ridding the world of immoral whores for example, but his main reason was sexual. Therefore, Tumbelty’s hatred of women is meaningless.
3) Tumbelty’s homosexuality: Regardless of what others say, this is a meaningful objection to Tumbelty being the Ripper. Consider the case of John Gacy. He was married twice and undoubtedly had intercourse with both his wives but his sexual interest was in young men. Therefore, he had murdered about 30 young men to satisfy his sexual cravings. Gacy had never once murdered a woman. Therefore, Tumbelty’s marriage is meaningless.
Case studies have consistently shown that serial killers have always habitually murdered the gender that is their sexual preference. For those that disagree, I challenge anyone to produce a single case in which a homosexual serial killer habitually murdered women. I bet you won’t find any.
4) Tumbelty’s extensive traveling: This is one of the biggest objections to Tumbelty being the Ripper. Serial killers don’t stop killing of their own accord. The sex drive is very powerful in a human male and more so in a serial killer. Serial killers will jump at every opportunity to kill in order to satisfy their lust. If Tumbelty was the Ripper, where are the Ripper like killings in the areas he’s been to? To suggest that the bodies weren’t discovered or that no connection was ever made to the Ripper is to suggest the absurd. Jack saw no problem in leaving his victims out in the open in Whitechapel but suddenly decides to hide them while in a foreign country? A series of mutilated prostitutes would not attract attention in a foreign county? Suggesting Jack had traveled abroad is the least plausible explanation as to why the murders had ceased in Whitechapel. The most likely explanation is that he either died or was incarcerated for an unrelated offense.
5) The time of the killings: The Ripper murders were committed on the weekends. Why? The most likely explanation is that Jack had a steady job during the week. Tumbelty did not have a job while in Whitechapel. Why would he restrict his killings to the weekend? Why didn’t he murder anyone during the week? This is another objection to Tumbelty.
6) The choice of victims: Prostitutes are a low risk victim. They are easily approachable and would rarely refuse a client. This indicates that Jack was a loner and had low self esteem. He would only approach women he knew would be unlikely to reject him. This is psychologically incompatible with Tumbelty, a flamboyant individual with an obvious superiority complex. If Tumbelty was the Ripper, he most likely would have gone after middle class or high class women. He would believe he deserved to have such women because his ego would demand as such.
As always, I look forward to hearing comments. |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Saturday, 05 December 1998 - 03:25 am | | Hi av,
Nice to hear from you again. I am afraid that all I know of the Jamaican and Nicaraguan murders is what has already been printed from the 1889 papers. Peter Birchwood is doing some research in those areas as he has some Central American contacts. I hope we can learn more.
Hi Odista,
1. You seem to be one of those people firmly entrenched in the 'profiling' groove that has become so popular these days. Unfortunately it is just not possible to categorise and label all killers and fit them into neat patterns of behaviour. Profiling, at best, enjoys, or so I am told, only a 75 per cent accuracy rate, and there are always the exceptions that disprove the rule. I draw your attention again the the lack of any sexual activity with these murders and the overt interest displayed in the womb. You keep mentioning these 'witness descriptions' but really, who saw the killer? I again point out that the best sighting was probably Mrs Long's, it was daylight, and she described a man 'over 40.' Now, if you choose to discard this evidence, fine, you stick with your ideas, and I'll have mine. It is a grave error to bracket your ideas into what you feel is 'psychologically consistent with what we know about serial killers,' and then miss the real suspects by just dismissing them because they don't fit with this preconceived idea.
2. As you have raised the point what do we know FOR CERTAIN about the Whitechapel murderer? Who were the common victims? Who saw him? When did he start killing? When did he finish killing? IF you can answer these questions you certainly know more about the case than I do.
3. Your point about homosexuality just does not hold water. It is all very well quoting well-known cases of serial killing, such as Gacy, but what of the hundreds who have never appeared in popular books, have you studied them. Your ideas on this rest soley on the killer's motive being sex/lust murder. We do not know his motive. He may have had as few as 3 Whitechapel victims, and modern profiling cannot be successfully applied to an UNKNOWN Victorian killer. We cite cases of homosexual/bisexual murderers in our book. There was Renwick Williams, the terror of London, known as 'The Monster' in 1788. He was an overt, garish homosexual, who, although he did not kill his victims, attacked young females stabbing and slashing them in the 'private' areas. On pages 124-139 of De Rivers' book, 'The Sexual Criminal' you will find a good example of a 'Ripper' type killer of women, the photographs show many similarities to the Whitechapel victims, who was practising homosexuality. Regarding a more recent example, Peter Sutcliffe, the 'Yorkshire Ripper,' who murdered prostitutes is examined in the book 'The Streetcleaner.' On page 136 it says - 'It is as if the Id (Peter's violence, his repressed homosexuality) has combined with the Superego (the male code) to produce the voice of God.'
There are others, also killers of both sexes. Hans Von Zon, Peter Kuerten, and 'Vacher the Ripper' who is a good example from 1894/7. He murdered and mutilated three young girls, a 58-year-old widow, a 16 years-old girl whose abdomen he opened ripping out her entrails, then on the same 'spree,' in a period of only eight days changed to the opposite sex and strangled, mutilated, and sodomized a 17 year-old shepherd boy. This was followed by a 15 year-old boy whose genitals he sliced off. A year later, having failed to rape a girl of 11 a few months before, he murdered a 19 year-old bride necrophilously violating her corpse. On October 1, 1896 he murdered a 14 year-old shepherdess, tearing out her genitals and taking them away with him. On May 27, 1897 he murdered a 14 year-old boy tramp, sodomizing the remains. He committed a similar offence on June 18, 1897, again sodomizing the body. On his arrest in August 1897 he claimed an 'irresistible impulse' and 'temporary insanity.' How can we neatly categorise these people?
4. Here you go again. He has to be THE typical serial killer. Whatever you may argue there are also many examples of travelling killers. Again, I have to say, what is his motive? You don't like my explanation and that's OK with me. It's a free world and I suggest you look for your 'serial killer,' who fits all the profiles. You have dismissed Tumblety, no-one can prove you wrong. You seem satisfied that you have achieved this, I guess it's time for you to move onto someone else, maybe Kosminski or Druitt.
5. The arguments you come up with have all been addressed in the past. Are you here thinking a 9-5, 5-day working week? Think again, most of these people worked a 6 or 7 day week, or had no work. You say, "Why would he restrict his killings to the weekend? Why didn't he murder anyone during the week? This is another objection to Tumblety. Consider this -
Tumblety's KNOWN offences of gross indecency were committed as follows -
1. On FRIDAY July 27, 1888, in London.
2. On FRIDAY August 31, 1888, in London.
3. On SUNDAY October 14, 1888, in London.
4. On FRIDAY November 2, 1888, in London.
Now, as I see it the fact that the 'Ripper' murders were committed at similar times (one on the same day as the Nichols murder), I do not follow your argument. Rather than telling against Tumblety it points to him! Why would he restrict the above offences to the weekend? Why didn't he commit any during the week? This is another point which supports the suspicions against him!
6. Oh dear, you are slipping into that profile again. Tumblety was a loner, he was KNOWN to hate prostitutes, and, I'm afraid, you cannot dismiss him because of preconceived ideas about egos (several serial killers have had rather large egos), and what about Renwick Williams, the flashily dressed, overt homosexual who attacked women in London in 1788? Dr Neill Cream had a VERY SIMILAR character to Tumblety, in fact he was the next 'serial killer' of prostitutes in London in 1891/2.
I am sorry Odista, we will have to agree to disagree. I would put more faith in the suspicions of a policeman who was there at the time, than any modern profiler. And really, may I please stick to the known facts, I hate engaging in long discussions involving speculation and conjecture in which neither party will ever agree.
Finally, it really is great to see your interest, and I thank you for that.
All good wishes,
Stewart |
Author: Odista
Sunday, 06 December 1998 - 12:58 am | | Dear Mr. Evans,
Thank you for your response to my post. I would like to start on a positive note and say I have read your book and I have found it to be one of the better Ripper books. You are certainly an excellent writer and researcher. I did enjoy reading your book immensely.
About profiling, you are correct when you say there are serial killers who are exceptions to the rule. Profiling can also be extremely inaccurate. Robert Resseler, one of the FBI agents who had pioneered profiling, had written that it was more of art than a science. Therefore, it would be a mistake to rely solely on profiling.
However, I would point out that we can’t just throw profiling out the window. As you have pointed out, profiling does enjoy a 75% accuracy rate. While profiling may not point us directly at the identity of Jack the Ripper, it can certainly help us to eliminate unlikely candidates.
For example, we could reasonably eliminate Jack the Ripper as being a woman. Why? Because we know that most serial killers are white males in their mid-twenties to early thirties. Is there an exception to this rule? Yes. Aileen Carol Wornous was a serial killer of men in Florida. Elizabeth Bathory, the so-called female Dracula, had murdered close to 600 women. But a female serial killer is so rare and unusual that it would be extremely unlikely that Jack was a woman.
To be fair and after reading my previous posts, it seems to me that I was basing my objections to Tumbelty too heavily on the profile while not paying much attention to the evidence. I will admit the available evidence pointing to Tumbelty while circumstantial is quite good. He was present in Whitechapel during the time of the murders. Littlechild must have had some reason to suspect him. Scotland Yard sending detectives to track him down and asking for his handwriting samples must be given due weight as well. Of course, no other ripper suspect can be associated with a collection of uteri as you had pointed out in a previous post.
In the end, I will say that Tumbelty is a possibility but would be a very unusual one. He is certainly more likely than Jill the Ripper, James Maybrick (I think the diary is a complete hoax), Prince Albert Victor, William Gull, and others. Unfortunately, he just doesn’t quite top my list. I would rank Tumbelty somewhere in the middle of all the Ripper suspects.
Of course, I look forward to reading your thoughts on this post and welcome everybody else’s comments as well.
Yours,
Odista |
Author: D. Radka
Sunday, 06 December 1998 - 02:32 am | | Odista,
This is a bit of a late response to your 12/4/98 posting. In it you write (at number 4):
"Serial killers don't stop killing of their own accord. The sex drive is very powerful in a human male and more so in a serial killer. Serial killers will jump at every opportunity to kill in order to satisfy their lust."
This seems to me to rather be reducing all that went behind the murders back to a simple, univocal original cause: the rampageous nature of the male sex drive! The WM had an eggregiously rampageous male sex drive, therefore he killed those women. This seems too easy an explanation to me--I think there were a cocktail of factors generating why he did what he did, all mixed together in a bizarre content we'll never exactly understand, and which drove him all the more because he couldn't understand himself. We are talking about a severely disordered personality, based on the evidence. Therefore the perpetrator's vigor need not indicate any lust on his part.
David |
Author: Yazoo
Sunday, 06 December 1998 - 08:36 am | | I haven't read Stewart's book yet but the thing that strikes me most about Tumblety -- in just these posts -- is his propensity for getting caught or suspected of a whole lot of things (from manslaughter to abortionist to Fenianism to gross indecency to being JtR). The man wasn't very circumspect, now was he? Even when not committing a crime, as in possibly inquiring after spare uteri, he had a knack for bringing suspicion upon himself. Though not impossible (what can you prove at this point), how did he acquire the capacity to act in a diametrically opposed manner in the Whitechapel killings? One of the frustrations of the cases is the killer's ability to not be seen or leave a clue, let alone get caught -- a trait Tumblety doesn't seem to share.
Also, if Tumblety was partially motivated to acquire uteri, why is Kelly's uterus removed and purposely arranged under her pillow with other items? If it had been Tumblety who killed her, would he have left the uterus once he removed it from the body? (Maybe Kelly isn't considered a "Ripper" victim in the Tumblety schema?) Must read the book!
Yaz |
Author: Yazoo
Sunday, 06 December 1998 - 10:19 am | | One last point: The "gross acts of indecency" sure sound ominous, but were they? The authorities of the time may have seen them as "offences" the way we see assault/battery, theft, and other truly criminal actions. Oscar Wilde served two years of hard labor for "gross acts of indecency and sodomy" in 1895 -- and he never was accused of performing the acts on the street or in public. The mere practice of homosexuality was a crime in those days...unless you are a homophobe, we don't hold that same position today; homosexual activity (or the "offence" of committing "gross indecency") is no longer criminalized. Unless Tumblety's charges specifically included something about violence during their commission, I'd treat those charges of "gross indecency" in the proper context of the late Victorian Age. We haven't yet reached the point of including an Oscar Wilde as a "Ripper" candidate based on his proven "offences", have we?
Yaz |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Sunday, 06 December 1998 - 04:45 pm | | Hi All,
Odista, many thanks for your very fair and well-argued response to my post. I must thank you, also, for your kind remarks about the book. I do not dismiss profiling out of hand, although over here it has received a lot of bad press and many policemen do not accept it as being of great use. They say that a lot of the things that the profilers come up with are fairly obvious in the first place, and merely confirm what they had already worked out themselves.
Your final comments regarding suspects do confirm your eminently sensible approach. I would be interested to know which of the suspects top your list. What you have to say is of great value and should be noted. I thank you again.
David, another well-reasoned and balanced post. Useful as always.
Yaz, nice to see you hangin' in there! Your remarks regarding Tumblety's propensity for getting caught or suspected for the other offences is interesting. Contrary to what you say as regards the Whitechapel murders, he was indeed arrested by the Metropolitan Police at the time of the murders, albeit for gross indecency, AND was suspected of being connected with the Whitechapel murders. As in his previous cases, he escaped the judicial processes, yet again, and was never prosecuted, fleeing to New York, from London with Scotland yard detectives following him. So, in fact, he ran true to form as always did, and not 'in a diametrically opposed manner.' His use of multiple aliases, staying in hotels and lodging houses, and uncanny ability to appear and disappear are all things that I have suggested would aid him if he was the killer.
The offences of gross indecency were created under Section 11 of The criminal Law Amendment Act of 1885. They were notoriously hard to prove, let alone enforce. One of the drawbacks being that the 'victim' was usually a co-offender. And how often are there witnesses to those sort of acts. Gross indecency would include mutual masturbation, fellatio, and inter-crural intercourse (i.e. between the thighs without penetration). It was a minor offence and classed as a misdemeanour. The act of sodomy was much more serious and carried a heavy prison sentence.
Yaz, I do hope you get to read the book soon, if I had a spare copy I would send it to you but it has been out of print over a year and I gave all my spare copies away. The paperback, as I said, should be out in New York this month.
Thank you all for your continued interest, and valuable contributions.
Best Wishes,
Stewart |
Author: Yazoo
Sunday, 06 December 1998 - 07:25 pm | | Hey, Stewart.
Yes, this is addictive, isn't it?
Stewart's book is out now and available through Amazon.com, at least. I'll have to wait til after Christmas to get it. Thanks for the offer though.
And I didn't mean to leave the impression that Tumblety wasn't arrested...in fact, the opposite. You show he got arrested quite a lot. Always got away, always had suspicions trailing behind him, but he was arrested first.
A pattern for Tumblety seems to be: 1) commission of a criminal act, 2) getting arrested for it, 3) escaping from the police/judicial process holding him for that act, 4) seldom if not ever being seen in the area again, 5) leaving behind a cloud of suspicions of what else he might have done.
If he killed the Whitechapel victims, typical Tumblety would mean he got caught during the commission of the murder, was arrested, somehow escaped jail or fled bond, was never seen again, AND people thought he might have been the torso-killer too. This didn't happen for any of the murders and that's what breaks his pattern, at least during his stay in England. That's what I meant by "diametrically opposed manner."
Presumably, in the gross indecency charges, he and his partner were observed -- else, who brought the charges?
The point there is that the charge need not be so sinister as it sounds...like modern associations to rape or sexual assaults. The act of sodomy -- between consenting adults, both between two males AND between a male and a female, even -- was a serious offense to the Victorians; it would not be viewed as such today, no?
If those "gross acts of indecency" (minor offenses and misdemeanors, as you say -- and though you don't mention it among the charges, I'll assume Tumblety was accused of the more "serious" charge of sodomy, as well) and the request for spare uteri were all the police back then had as reasons to suspect Tumblety, we wouldn't suspect Tumblety today based just on those two items.
I'm sure your book provides many more reasons against Tumblety. The strange Dr. T is a most curious specimen...and a more likely suspect -- to me -- than Chapman or anyone else I've heard about. But I ain't decided yet.
BUY STEWART'S BOOK!!!!
Think of me when you get your next royalty check!
Yaz |
Author: Christopher-Michael
Sunday, 06 December 1998 - 10:20 pm | | Stewart:
This is a bit late, but it seems that when I step outside for some fresh air for a day or two, dozens of messages pile up and I find my voice being drowned out by Yaz! (just joking, my friend!)
Thank you for your response regarding my questions on Tumblety's appearance and on Lewis, Prater and circumstances surrounding MJKs time of death on another board. I appreciate your taking time to set me straight, even if it does feel as though you're repeating the same things over and over again because some of us just aren't listening
:-)!
I'll second Yaz' thoughts to anyone new to the board - buy Stewart's book! No Ripper library should be without a copy (or two, or three).
Christopher-Michael |
Author: Bob_c
Monday, 07 December 1998 - 05:56 am | | Hi all,
I'm succumbing to the general plugging of Stewart's book and will be buying it after Christmas. (In fact I will have to, and also read it well, if I am ever going to be taken seriously sometime. Honest, Stewart).
Tumbelty:
Tumbelty got his collar felt time and time again for almost anything from vicious murder to farting in the street, and not only in England. If he were friend Jack, it does seems probable that he would have been caught for that as well.
There is a non-scientific saying a la Murphy, however, that propounds:
A genius with all his power fails at madmen who laugh and snap their fingers.
Bob |
Author: Yazoo
Monday, 07 December 1998 - 07:53 am | | Hey!
I resemble that comment, CM! (And, folks, hurry and order your copy of Stewart's book now that CM has been made aware of its availability!!)
And I don't want anyone to construe my comments as some/any sort of "disproof" about the tumbling Tumblety. Stewart (and/or his book) may give maore details about the "gross indecency" charges that would indeed make them ominous. But even if there is no more, it doesn't disprove/shake Stewart's thesis at all.
And I'm not just saying that because Stewart is an ex-cop who by now probably knows where I live!
Yaz |
Author: Edana
Monday, 07 December 1998 - 09:13 am | | Yaz, you had to go and mention Oscar Wilde. Suddenly,I stick my head out from under Elizabeth Prador's bed and take notice. Oscar was convicted of gross indecency because our friend Inspector Littlechild put the screws to lots of pathetic rent boys and got them to testify against my hero (Oscar) swearing under oath that he committed the act of sodomy upon them. (This was most probably not true by the way). Anywho,I wonder if Littlechild had some special knowledge of the rent boys..perhaps he was assigned to the "vice squad" and his job was to know about these boys...Was he involved in the Cleveland Street Scandal at all? If his special knowledge of the comings (sorry) and goings of the London rent boys was extensive, then he would have known all about Tumbelty, I'm sure...at least Tumblety's dealings with those boys. Where this is taking me, I don't know. I just feel there is something that seperates the male prostitutes from the female prostitutes of that day. It' s said that on the day Oscar got hauled away and taken to jail the female prostitutes danced for joy in the streets, claiming that Oscar and his group were responsible for taking away a majority of their business and giving it to the male prostitutes. I'm sure I had a point here somewhere, but demmed if I can remember what it was.
Edana |
Author: Bob_c
Monday, 07 December 1998 - 10:15 am | | Hi all,
Tumbelty having been a puff doesn't really do much to make me believe he was Jack. (Jack the Fairy(!).. Noo..).
Of couse, in merry old England even up to the mid-1960's, indulging in private homosexual intercourse was treated as being just a bit less serious as raping a vicar's grandmother to death in the center of Piccadilly Circus on a sunday afternoon in the snow.
That this fact in the 1880's made Tumbelty to a fire-breathing monster, capable of being Jack, has to be seen in the light of modern standards, where Homosexuals can get married and be film stars. In those days poor old Oscar had no chance.
Tumbelty's evident flamboyant style, coupled with a record as long as your arm and being a Fairy on top... That was almost enough to have hanged him from the next lampost. No wonder he was a suspect. Was he a serious suspect?.....
Bob |
Author: Yazoo
Monday, 07 December 1998 - 10:28 am | | Edana,
I wondered if you'd notice my mention of Oscar. Have you read Ellman's biography? Gives all the sordid details of those "rent boys." Some of them were out-and-out trying to blackmail Oscar...and it seems he paid, of course with appropriate amusement. I sympathize with the Big O. but he probably should have kept quiet, especially since he wasn't championing his sexuality but denying it. I just brought him up to compare his charges ("crimes") with the charges brought against the tumultuous Tumblety.
Paul Begg, somewhere, recommended two books on the Cleveland St. scandal. Hopefully he'll see your message and "tell all." Several names from JtR's case were involved in that, I think he said...meaning the police...meaning as in busting the house(s)...not...never mind.
Has anybody seen Stewart lately? I mean, IN England. He wasn't near any airports, was he? Is that a knock I hear at my door?
Yaz |
Author: Bob_c
Monday, 07 December 1998 - 11:04 am | | Hi Yaz,
That the big O didn't champion his homsexuality in those days does not suprise me unduly. I wouldn't have either in his shoes. I agree that he should have kept his trap shut.
There are 'Rent boys' in London even today (O.K. at least in 1989) collecting 'Rent' (protection) from (secret) homosexuals after having seduced them. This form of blackmail won't have changed since Oscar and Tumbelty. Ask Stewart, Yaz, who is just about to breath down your neck with Ball and chain and batton.
Bob |
Author: Hawk
Monday, 07 December 1998 - 11:30 am | | Dear Stewart,
Having re-read the chapter entitled 'The Lodger' (again) I evidently was mistaken, about the German landlady would did summon the police just after the suspect had handed her the bloodsoaked shirt. My ONLY problem with Tumbelty IS the Batty Street Lead and the only problem with Batty St.is location.
It is just that the only murder sight it's close to is Buck's Row. (This does fit in with the 'Typical' Serial killer of killing their first close to 'home' though)
I will ponder the geographic signifigance or insignifigance further. |
Author: Edana
Monday, 07 December 1998 - 01:33 pm | | Bob! Um..puff..fairy? Tsk, tsk....so totally non pc of you! I suspect that the police in those halcyon days were not quite so shocked at how common it was for those marauding testosterone soaked Victorian men to spend their hard earned shillings on nice friendly boys instead of women.
Yaz.....ever a delight! Of course I've read Ellman. I've read every book I can get my sweaty little hands on concerning Oscar. Yes, he should have kept quiet and bolted to France, but he was proud, Irish (his excuse, not mine) and on top of the world in 1895. He championed his sexual preference to those who were in sympathy, but as you have seen, it was quite fatal to champion it in public. I think that my point is that Tumbelty was not the only person out there getting arrested for gross indecency and that it was maybe more common than you might think. Again, where that leads me...I don't know, but I have a slight prejudice in favor of Tumbelty being the ripper, only because he once lived only hours away from where I live now, which is probably the most ridiculous reason ever given for believing in a suspect.
Edana |
Author: Yazoo
Monday, 07 December 1998 - 02:23 pm | | Hey All,
I hope Stewart will be pleased to learn that I have at last scored a copy of his book...thank you for local bookstores and ready cash!
Some big shooters promoting the book on the back cover too. Although I still don't understand why they photocopied my driver's license and took my fingerprints before handing over the book. Hmmm?
Edana, best reason I've heard for suspecting a suspect. And since you're a literary trivia fan, here's one. The new anothology of William Burroughs' writing, called Word Virus (and no, Paul, I am not plugging another book whilst ignoring yours) says in the Editor's Preface, explaining what Burrough's wanted to call the book: "'I think I shall call it 'Just for Jolly.' You realize, of course, these are the words of Jack the Ripper, uttered in response to a query as to the motivation for his crimes. 'Just for jolly,' he said...' He'd (Burroughs) had been reading about Jack the Ripper in those final days..." (meaning circa July/August 1997 -- just before Burroughs died of a heart attack).
Creepy coincidence, huh? If only Wild Bill could've posted to the Casebook!
Yaz |
Author: Edana
Monday, 07 December 1998 - 04:21 pm | | Oh my stars, Yaz.....William Burroughs a Ripperphile? Why should I be surprised? have you heard or seen his collaboration with Tom Waits, called The Black Rider? Talk about creepy! I love it! Things would certainly be a little odd with dear old Burroughs around. I miss the old geezer.
Edana |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Monday, 07 December 1998 - 04:43 pm | | YAZ - I'M HUNTING YOU, YES YOU. Please be my literary agent.
All the Best,
Stewart
(PS - Edana, perhaps you could be an agent too?) |
Author: Yazoo
Monday, 07 December 1998 - 06:50 pm | | Hey, Stewart!
If I say yes, does that mean I get 15% back from the price for your book?
No, Edana, I haven't heard/seen that Burroughs/Waits collaboration...at least I don't remember. Have you heard his work on Material's Seven Souls? There's also a four CD box set of his I'm saving up for. I wonder what made Burroughs say that JtR was answering a query. He had the brainpower and the knowledge of the under-world (if you know what I mean -- more than just crime), but you can never tell when he was serious or sarcastic or BOTH! The esoterica that man knew amazes me. Just when you think he's spoofing, you look it up and he's right! I'll miss the old geezer too.
Yaz |
Author: Odista
Monday, 28 December 1998 - 09:25 pm | | Hello everyone. I'm back. I'm sorry I haven't written anything in a while but I've been busy this holiday season. I hope everyone had a Merry Christmas.
In response to some of the posts. To D. Radka's post on 12/6/98: I do agree with you that there could be and probably was a cocktail of factors that motivated Jack to commit murder. Maybe I wasn't clear about this before but I believe Jack's "primary motive" was sexual in nature. Of course Jack could certainly have had secondary motives as well: hatred of women, anger at society, maybe a belief that he was ridding the world of immorality, etc. But I do firmly believe that these were sexual crimes even if intercourse had not taken place or no semen was found at the scene.
Mr. Evans had asked who's my favorite suspect. For right now, it's Aaron Kosminski for three reasons. First, he fits the profile. Second, he is the only suspect in which a "link" can be established with the ripper murders through the unnamed witness. Third, two policemen, Swanson and Anderson, had apparently settled on Kosminski. Because they were the officers in charge of the case, their opinions do carry great weight.
Of course, I'm well aware of the problems with Kosminski. Who was the unnamed witness and how reliable was he? Of course, much has been made about Kosminski's mental condition, how could a man who eats food out of the gutter be a serial killer? Of course, he was committed in 1891 when this observation was made. We don't know what his mental condition was like in 1888.
I hesitate to say for sure Kosminiski was the Ripper, but I believe he is the most likeliest candidate for now. Of course, my opinion could change if better data comes to light. |
Author: JOHN SPEAKING
Saturday, 02 January 1999 - 10:36 pm | | TO MR. STEWART EVANS
I HAVE SEVERAL PROBLEMS WITH TUMBLETY'S VIABILITY AS A SUSPECT,( ALTHOUGH HE REMAINS A CREDIBLE ONE):
YOU SAY HE FITS THE PROFILE OF A SERIAL KILLER; THIS IS NOT ENTIRELY ACCURATE; HE FAILS ON SEVERAL COUNTS, WHICH INCLUDE:
1. HE LOVED PUBLICITY AND SELF-PROMOTION; MOST SERIAL KILLERS ARE VERY PRIVATE NON DESCRIPT INDIVIDUALS WHO SHUN THE PUBLIC EYE. TUMBLETY SEEMED TO BE A QUITE A PUBLIC FIGURE WHEREVER HE STAYED: ECCENTRIC IN MATTER, GARISH IN APPEARANCE; GETTING EMBROILED IN PUBLIC SCANDALS, PUBLISHING PAMPHLETS; AROUSING SUSPICION SEVERAL TIMES WITH RESPECT TO SOME IMPORTANT CRIMINAL CASES (IE: LINCOLN'S ASSASINATION, THE YELLOW FEVER CONSPIRACY…). MOST SERIAL KILLERS ARE ANONYMOUS INDIVIDUALS WHOSE EXISTENCE IS NOT KNOWN TILL THEY ARE CAUGHT. A SERIAL KILLER DOES NOT NEED ALIASES BECAUSE NOBODY KNOWS OR CARES WHO HE IS. THIS ANONIMITY IS THE KEY TO HIS SUCCESS. TUMBLETY'S SOCIAL STATUS AND REAL WEALTH ARE MAJOR NO-NO'S FOR SERIAL KILLERS. THEY ARE MOSTLY LOWER MIDDLE CLASS, SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC FAILURES, WITH SPORADIC MENIAL EMPLOYMENT.
CHANCES ARE THAT JACK WAS A LOCAL, PEASANT CLASS KIND OF PERSON.
2. HIS SEXUAL ORIENTATION: THIS MAY SOUND LIKE A TIRED ARGUMENTS, BUT HETERO'S USUALLY KILL HETERO'S (BUNDY, RIFKIN), AND GAYS KILL GAYS (DAHMER, GACY).
3. WHY DID TUMBLETY STOP KILLING (OR DID HE?). SERIAL KILLERS NEVER STOP KILLING TILL THEY ARE CAUGHT. WHY DID TUMBLETY SETTLE DOWN AFTER RETURNING TO THE STATES (OR DID HE?). HE LIVED FOR MORE THAN 15 YEARS AFTER THE AUTUMN OF TERROR. DID HE KILL IN THE STATES AFTER HIS RETURN? WAS THERE A RASH OF KILLINGS IN ROCHESTER , NY???
4. HIS HATRED OF WOMEN: HE MAY HAVE DISPLAYED AN OPEN HATRED OF WOMEN, AND MAY HAVE KEPT SOME UNSEEMLY SPECIMENS, BUT THIS IS PURELY ANECDOTAL AND COMES PRINCIPALLY FROM ONE SOURCE. MORE IMPORTANTLY, AN OPEN HATRED OF WOMEN WOULD HAVE ONLY BEEN A SMALL COMPONENT OF THIS SERIAL KILLER'S MINDSET, AN ALMOST SECONDARY ONE (IF AT ALL, TUMBLETY WAS OPENLY GAY; THE MOST VIRULENT WOMEN HATERS ARE USUALLY HETEROSEXUAL). A PSYCHOPATH DERIVES HIS PLEASURE FROM THE SUBJUGATION OF HELPLESS VICTIMS WITH NO CONSIDERATION FOR HIS VICTIMS SUFFERING, BECAUSE THE KILLER HAS NO CONSCIENCE, NO FEELING OF EMPATHY OF ANY KIND FOR OTHER PEOPLE. IT IS MUCH MORE A VISCERAL IMPULSE, THAN A CULTIVATED SENTIMENT, LIKE HATRED. HE LOVES POWER MORE THAN HE HATES VICTIMS. HE CANNOT LOVE NOR HATE ANYONE. HE CAN ONLY LOVE TO CONTROL AND KILL.
YOU PRESENTED MANY RATIONAL ARGUMENTS FOR TUMBLETY BEING THE KILLER, AND THAT'S ALSO A PROBLEM. IT'S ALL TOO NEAT AND TIDY. THESE BEASTS ARE NOT RATIONAL. THE MOST POINTED QUESTION THAT REMAINS UNANSWERED (AND PERHAPS UNASWERABLE) WHEN ONE OF THESE MONSTERS ARE CAUGHT IS "WHY"! DID HE DO IT. |
Author: Jeff D
Sunday, 03 January 1999 - 06:48 am | | Hello John,
John Speaking, and asking questions is OK, but JOHN SHOUTING IS NOT NECESSARY!
Welcome to the boards, it is apparent that you have read Mr. Evan's book, but are not totally convinced, this is OK, and I am sure there is more research going on into Tumblety's possible involvement in the affairs in Whitechapel. I, personally think this is one of the better suspect books ever written, and certainly does make a case for Tumblety, while obviously many questions still remain.
There is the possibility that Tumblety could have been involved in the Nicarauguan murders, which did occurr during a period that Tumblety's actual wearabouts cannot be determined, although I believe he did mention somewhere that he had travelled to Central America after his visit to England. Also the finding of two cheap brass rings amongst Tumblety's extravagent, expensive jewelry, is an item, which if it can be confirmed, could be very strong evidence, in the case against Tumblety.
So, again, welcome to the boards, and I hope you continue to contribute, just please remember, there is no need to shout, we can hear you fine.
Jeff D |
Author: Bob_c
Monday, 04 January 1999 - 03:29 am | | Hi Jeff,
Many of John's points, while a bit loud, are non-the-less valid and match my own feelings about Tumbelty. He was, as we know, such a character that his 'fame' followed, or even preceeded, him where-ever he went. Even the cheap ring business does not lead me to any definite conclusion about him, he was a nut and was probably capable of almost everything.
Like all madmen, he seems to have suceeded where all sane men fail. He was evidently well-off, and not from birth either. He seems to have made his own fortune. Match that to the fact that he got his collar felt for almost everything he did wrong almost everywhere he was. What do you get?
A guy who can do a quack indian doctor role good enough to make a fortune but can't even piddle in the street without getting a ticket.
I suspect that it was the inability of the sane to understand how Tumbelty's brain ticked that led to his success. If Tumbelty was Jack, then that could be a reason for him not getting caught. He was in any case a suspect, but only one of many.
Bob
p.s. Welcome to the board too, John. |
Author: Jeff D
Monday, 04 January 1999 - 05:53 am | | HiYa Bob & John,
I'm in total agreement with your comments, and John has made an excellent post, asking pertinent questions about the suspect Tumblety. I have said, and I do hope that Mr. Speaking continues to post his thoughts here.
I personally, have many reservations about Tumblety, and his flambouyance really is very much at the core of my apprehension about him possibly being Jack. For example, we have a number of witness descriptions of men seen with the victim just before the body being discovered, and if it was Tumblety, he would have been spotted a mile away.
Tumblety was a very colourful character, being a quack doctor, also a stranger to the area, means he could not have walked about Whitechapel (unless in disguise), without being recognised, or suspected of something. So, as I have mentioned a while back, could such a man who loved to be seen, be also so experienced in stealth ?
Many other items favouring him as a suspect, do have to be resolved around the type of character he was. It is the Tumblety possibility, that does make me consider, there may have been an accomplice in the murders.
It's a shame that Mr. Evans couldn't have responded to John Speaking personally. It would have been nice to see such open discussion and debate on a viable suspect, which although doubts remain Tumblety certainly is.
I have always kept up with discussion on these boards, although for a while now, have felt that I could not make any sensible contribution to the discussions. It is people like John Speaking that have at least enabled me to try and contribute, and cause further positive debate. Although I do try to read most of the postings, there are topics that I do choose to avoid. I do get quite frustrated, when I have seen true JtR research contaminated in such ways as have happened this decade. We're only just getting back on track after Knights' contribution to the subject. (IMO)
Cheers Bob & All
Jeff D |
Author: Bob_c
Tuesday, 05 January 1999 - 04:56 am | | Hi Jeff,
You speak to me to the heart. I also sometimes wonder if my two pence is really worth anything, but old soldiers..... I welcome your input, however, just like the most of us do.
Hey, Yaz!
What about Tumbelty being Jack II/apprentice Jack? Any thoughts, or is that too daft to comment?
Bob |
Author: Jeff D
Wednesday, 06 January 1999 - 06:28 am | | Hello Bob, (& All) !
Thanks for the comments .........
Yeh, I could see a scenario where someone like Tumblety comes into the area, and enjoys finding out about life on the seedier side of town. In one of the local boozers, he makes the acquaintance of a local man, maybe even someone like Joe Barnett, and they strike up a boozing friendship.
Tumblety, amongst other things expresses his interest in the reproductive parts of various classes of women, along with his disgust of whores to his new drinking buddy. Joseph also confirms his total dislike of whores to the American. It becomes apparent that this would be a rich hunting ground, with so many women, of the type Tumblety and Joe find particularily disgusting, and at the end of the day, "would anyone really care if such a class of woman was culled from the streets ?" They justify their ideas to themselves, and each other.
Tumblety's new-found friend, who is obviously well acquainted with the area, even mentions how such women had been attacked and murdered earlier on that year, with no repercussion, and between them a dark, sinister plot is hatched ! Tumblety's friend, is himself prepared to do the dirty deed, knowing that the rich American will pay handsomly. Then one dark night, with the skies a glowing red, and most of the emergency services battling a blaze down at the docks, they realise their opportunity. With the quack doctor standing at an inconpicuous distance, the first murder, and attempt at procurring such organs is made with Polly Nichols. The lookout hears the approach of footsteps, and before the mutilations can be finished, they must leave quickly, before they are discovered.
Finding the Nichols attempt being rather a botched job, but an amazing buzz, they decide to try again next week ! (same time, same channel)
Quite a few items do actually point to the possibility that more than one individual was at work that autumn, and although I have many apprehensions about such a crazed serial killer working in collusion with someone, it could explain how Jack did take such enormous risks, such as taking Chapman to a place with no immediate means of egress, the amazing timing involved in the Eddowes murder, etc.
How's this for a scenario ? Crazy ? Probably, but there have been far crazier ideas put about over 111 years, ha ha ! I could have filled in many more of the gaps with more detail and speculation,
but would anyone dare to consider a possibility along these lines ? You are all cordially invited to blow this theory out of the water, else I shall write the screenplay, he he !
Cheers, and Happy New year to everybody !
Jeff D |
Author: Jeff D
Wednesday, 06 January 1999 - 10:30 am | | Great minds think alike !
Whooooops ! and sorry,..... please everybody, I was just trying to make light of my scenario, and not ridicule any other posting under any subject here on the message boards. Only when I finished, and posted my comments, did I check another subject and see jokes about screenplays and stuff.
No disrespect or ridicule of anyone else's ideas was ever intended. I just wanted to post a possible idea that I had, while trying to inject a little humour, so please don't think I was poking fun at anyone elses post. Hopefully my history here on message boards will confirm that I have always acted respectfully toward other peoples comments.
As ever...
Jeff D |
Author: John Speaking
Wednesday, 13 January 1999 - 09:16 pm | | To Mr. Stewart Evans
I may be a little loud, but your silence is positively deafening. |
Author: Christopher T. George
Wednesday, 13 January 1999 - 10:37 pm | | Hello John Speaking:
You obviously are not aware that Stewart Evans posted on these boards for some weeks late last year but then decided to withdraw for personal reasons. He has made substantial contributions elsewhere on this site, and I believe you will find your objections to Tumblety adequately answered if you search the site. I might add that your points about Tumblety provide some valid strikes against him as a Ripper suspect. Nevertheless, Francis Tumblety remains a stronger, more reasonable suspect than many that have been suggested.
Chris George |
Author: PAUL WALKER
Monday, 18 January 1999 - 05:50 pm | | On the evidence I have digested thus far I believe James Maybrick or Tumblety to be prime suspects. Read the case histories and the Maybrick diary and post your arguments against either or both,with alternatives to my E-mail or on this noticeboard thanks
PAUL WALKER |
Author: bobby adams
Monday, 25 January 1999 - 03:13 am | | | I think that Tumblety fellow did it! The scoundrel!! |
Author: Rotter
Thursday, 11 February 1999 - 04:43 am | | | I notice the New York Times quoted on the "Carrie Brown" page to the effect that Inspector Byrnes of the NY police had a photographic copy of the first Ripper letters. Was this sent over as part of the hunt for Tumblety in NYC? Does anyone know what other information the NY and London exchanged? |
Author: Rotter
Sunday, 14 February 1999 - 05:13 pm | | | I have been trying to find those NY newspapers that refer to Tumblety, and digging into other sources, but nothing new has shown up. I have even strolled by Tumblety's old digs at 79 E 10th, which of course is the site of a big ugly apartment building now. But it is interesting that it is at the top of the Bowery, then noisily enjoying its reputation as the most depraved street in America. He was in the very heart of prostitute territory, and yet no ripped us prostitutes? I must add that although I have doubts about Tumblety he is the most fascinating character on the list. |
|
|
|
|
