Archive through October 21, 1999

** 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 October 21, 1999

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Specific Suspects: Contemporary Suspects [ 1888 - 1910 ]: Tumblety, Francis: Archive through October 21, 1999

Author: Stewart P Evans Sunday, 04 July 1999 - 04:11 am
Wolf, I suggest that you get your facts right, then try again.
Author: Rotter Sunday, 04 July 1999 - 05:43 am
Mr.Evans, has new information come to light about Tumblety, and do you have plans to publish new work on the subject? One thing that disturbs me about the chase to New York is that Tumblety was allowed to escape so easily, evidently by walking to the corner and getting a streetcar with no detective following him. I don't understand why Tumblety was not arrested if he really was the Ripper-the police of the time were not much concerned with constitutional issues. However, if there was a Feinian connection to Tumblety, could it be that the Irish-dominated NY police let him slip away rather than return him to England?
Author: Stewart P Evans Sunday, 04 July 1999 - 10:47 am
I have answered all these queries before, and do not intend to become involved in protracted discussion on them again. The answers are to be found both in my books and in the long interviews and contributions I have made to past discussions on these boards. I am sorry to hear that you are disturbed. I have made it clear that they were not in a position to prove the case against him, or anyone else for that matter, and that extradition for the offences charged under the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1885 was not an option. They were mere misdemeanours.
Author: Wolf Sunday, 04 July 1999 - 06:49 pm
Hey Stewart, let me try this once more. YES!!!, Tumblety was Jack the Ripper!! Born in Whitechapel in the heart of the murder area he knew the streets like the back of his hand. Although the near blind and demented Lawende described a 30 year old man of about 5 feet 9, Tumblety was able to disguise his hieght by duck walking around Spitalfields like a psychotic Groucho Marxs. Although we have no real evidence Mr. Stewart Evans says it is so, it must be so. That about the level of debate you want, Stewart? Wolf.
Author: Stewart P Evans Sunday, 04 July 1999 - 08:01 pm
This is just the sort of attitude I was trying to avoid...
Author: Moderatrix Sunday, 04 July 1999 - 08:46 pm
I feel I should step in here before things once more get out of hand. Mr. Evans: I adore your posts and commentary in this forum, and I doubt if anyone rejoiced as much as I when you recently returned to the boards. I fear, however, that exchanges like the one above between yourself and "Wolf" may lead to your once more quitting the Case Book. If I may take the liberty to offer some friendly advice: you stated elsewhere that you did not intend to embroil yourself in the bitterness found on these boards. I believe this is a good policy. I realize you must be frustrated when others on the boards repeat fallacies about Tumblety or other aspects of the case, but replying with such curt responses as "I suggest that you get your facts right, then try again," is a sure-fire path to a bitter response like the one Wolf has provided. That's not to say such a response is to be condoned, but it certainly can be expected. I understand that you do not wish to repeat yourself over and over, answering questions which have already been addressed in your book and elsewhere, and I completely sympathise. But instead of replying in a semi-antagonistic manner, perhaps it would be best to remain silent and allow other members of the board to address these posts. Again, just an attempt to prevent a further break between yourself and the Case Book. After the slew of insightful and absolutely priceless posts you've added to these boards in the past week, I would hate to see another minor incident such as this leading once more to utter disaster. I hope you do not think me presumptuous in making these comments. You remain, kind sir, in my highest regards. Moderatrix
Author: Caz Sunday, 04 July 1999 - 08:47 pm
Hi All, I didn't think Wolfie had an 'attitude' problem actually. Perhaps it's just me, but he seemed to be making a reasonable, albeit comical, observation. Perhaps we should all lighten up a bit and see the funny side of our debating occasionally. And talking about Grouchy Marx (sorry, Freudian slip there ;-)), surely one would not want to belong to a club....etc etc etc. Sorry, I'll shut up now. Love, Harpo Caz (honk honk)
Author: Stewart P Evans Sunday, 04 July 1999 - 09:55 pm
Obviously my sense of humour isn't what it should be. However I can do without this. Thanks Moderatrix for a sensible response, yes I do get frustrated, and no, I don't need it. Thank you to all those who have given support and kind remarks.
Author: Wolf Monday, 05 July 1999 - 01:02 am
To Stewart Evans, I was very glad to see your return to these boards and I have nothing against you. It took some thought as to whether I should respond to your first posting but I have to admit that I responded with anger, which I feel was justified. I can only say that I intend no heated long term argument with you and have to agree with moderatrix and Caz that we don't need it between the two of us.If you respect my opinions, I will certainly respect yours. Wolf.
Author: Caz Monday, 05 July 1999 - 04:33 am
Sorry Wolfie, I misinterpreted your post because I failed to see any anger there, just quick wit and repartee. I even thought you were posting it with a smile on your lips, which shows how wrong one can be. Mind you, erring on that side of misinterpretation may be better for diplomacy and the Casebook peace process in the long run, so perhaps my apology is unnecessary. Smiles all round please. It's not the end of the world if we disagree about a suspect being Jack. Love, Caz
Author: Robert Cron Tuesday, 13 July 1999 - 03:21 pm
I am not sure that the seemingly pat assumption that homosexual murderers are primarily interested in victims of the same sex may be entirely true. I'm sure that Henry Lee Lucas and Otis Toole, who both carried on a homosexual affair (perhaps with more "ardor" on Toole's part) claimed both male and female victims. Tumblety appears to be an interesting subject; my concern is mainly the fact that people might rule him out of any complicity in the Ripper murders simply because of his homosexual behavior...
Author: dclydew Tuesday, 03 August 1999 - 07:51 am
If Tumblety is JTR how do we explain the height discrepancy?
Author: Dave Owings Monday, 06 September 1999 - 04:50 pm
I am very new to this and have not read the books. However, after reading the Casebook I am convinced that Tumblety is the man. The fact that he showed uteri to witnesses years before the murders make him stand out above all the others on the list. To me, if it is not him, none of the others on the list fit either. The argument about his homosexuality does not hold water. Just because homosexuals "typically" kill victims of their same gender does not mean they always do so. He could have extremely cofused feelings about women and sexuality which could have led to the acts. The height differences are the easy part. Height is one of the hardest characteristics to judge, especially in the dark and if the person doing the observing is not particularly skilled or it is a dark night, early morning, etc. I would love to hear the other arguments against T. being the Ripper. I am open-minded and willing to persuaded, but since he is the only suspect on the list who showed uteri to witnesses, I am compelled to believe he is the man. Fire away! I am smitten with the subject. Thanks.
Author: Sara Monday, 06 September 1999 - 06:58 pm
"Smitten" are you? Welcome, welcome...warm up your lending library card and join the ranks! See you on the boards. Sara
Author: Caz Tuesday, 07 September 1999 - 09:04 am
Hi All, I have a few problems with old Tumblety being our man. He may well have been a temporarily free man on 9th November when Kelly was killed, although he had been arrested on 7th pending charges of gross indecency and indecent assault with force and arms against four young men. A couple of things strike me here. 1) Much has been made of the quack doc's love of collecting uteri to provide us with a plausible motive for the murders. But we know that Kelly's uterus was left at the scene and her heart appears to be the only item on the missing organs list. So, if he did kill her why the change of heart? (sorry!) On the other hand, if Tumblety was JtR but did not kill Kelly, who did? I think all the copy-cat theories (mainly involving Barnett I guess) are highly unlikely for reasons which have been discussed recently on these boards. 2) I can't understand why this flamboyant character would hang around after his initial November 7th arrest if he was temporarily at liberty and had already committed at least three far more serious crimes. Why did he allow himself to be brought before magistrates nine days later, only deciding to flee the country before he could be brought to trial in December? What would make sense is if it dawned on him, between the date of the indecency charges being brought and his escape abroad, that the police were making uncomfortable enquiries into his other strange habits and may consequently suspect him of being the ripper. Nobody could really blame Tumblety for getting out sharpish in those circumstances rather than buggering about in London :-0 What does everybody else think? Love, Caz
Author: Alan Tuesday, 07 September 1999 - 11:38 am
I think that you have some interesting thoughts Caz.
Author: Dave Owings Tuesday, 07 September 1999 - 01:54 pm
Caz, I think your point about T. leaving the country is well made. He may not have know he was a suspect in the Ripper murders until later, then fled. The indecency charge may have been the catalyst for the Kelly murder. His confusion over sexuality explodes after he is arrested and he takes it out on her. But this time, he wants to be different or send a message or exact some other strange punishment on women, and takes her heart. I don't buy copycat killing of such violence. I can understand the simple murders as copycats, but the dismemberments?! I don't think he's thinking like a bank robber trying to get away. He would hang around London to get what he wants first. The fact that he stays after being detained doesn't change my opinion. I can't find anything rational in any of the incidents, especially after the seeing the horrible crime scene photos. He is not a calculating criminal in that sense. Only when the threat of capture becomes real does he flee. Thoughts? Dave
Author: jack colton Tuesday, 05 October 1999 - 10:00 am
Hello All-- I am new to this forum, but have studied much of the latest literature on the killings; especially favoring Sugden's unbiased work. I do not believe Dr. T to be the murderer. First, his age and physical description do not match any witness accounts. He is too old at the time of the killings, too tall (5'11"-6'0"), and wore a large flowing mustache. The most reliable witness account always site a man between 25-35, rather short at 5'7", with a close cropped mustache. Second, according to Evans and Gainey, Dr. T spends much of his adult life purposefully calling attention to himself: his dress, his mannerisms, his constant need for recognition. It is hard to accept the fact that a man who has spent most of his life bombastically calling attention to himself, would in his 50's, suddenly transform himself from extravagence to a stealthy dark clad serial killer. I'm not suggesting it to be impossible, simply an unlikely scenario. Also note that in 1891, he writes a third pamphlet, calling attention to himself once again, intimating he has been maligned throughout his life, and so on... It is more likely to recognize the Tumblety figure as a charlatan doctor who liked to engage in homosexual activities and live a flamboyant lifestyle. Keep in mind that he was fairly well known in the U.S. and open mindedness about homosexuality was virtually non-existent. This combined with his legal problems, would account for his relocation to England. Fourth, if Dr. T was the culprit, wouldn't it be safe to assume that, based on his well documented penchant for flair and attention grabbing, he would have submitted numerous taunting letters to the police that would have eventually risen to the surface like the handful of letters currently debated today. His pathological need for attention would have led to a virtual pen-pall relationship with the police as he would have bragged endlessly. Lastly, the Evans/Gainey book seeks to discount Stride in order to make the theory workable. This is incorrect. The Stride murder is an important component in identifying the pathology of the killer. It illustrates how the killer's brutality was accelerating. He had a mission on the night of the double event. The fact that the singing at the Socialist club stopped almost simeltaneously with when Stride was killed, and the party dispersed, interrupted the killer and forced him to flee to avoid detection. However, he was so driven to complete a diabolical mission, that within an hour (and a 12 minute walk), he was moved to kill and badly mutilate (his goal that night) Eddowes in an extremely risky area (a public square), to accomplish his desires that evening. The Littlechild letter is important to see where the police were going, but they were essentially tracking down every obvious lunatic and miscreant in the East End. Tumblety deviant sexual behavior along with his flamboyance and apparent hatred of women made him the object of suspicion---but to get to Jack--it's a bit of a stretch. Thoughts?
Author: Julian Tuesday, 05 October 1999 - 06:42 pm
G'day Jack, No arguments from me mate, You've pretty much got Tumblety summed up. Oh by the way, welcome. Jules
Author: John Kenrick Thursday, 21 October 1999 - 11:15 am
As a longtime armchair Ripperologist, I have no pet theories as to who the killer really was. To date, Sugden & Rumbelow remain my favorite authors on the subject because of their even-handed approach to all theories. However, I have one particular problem with Tumblety as a suspect. He certainly is a viable candidate, with many circumstantial points against him. In fact, Adams & Gainey have given us the most plausible new suspect of recent years. However, why would a homosexual go about slaughtering female prostitutes? There have been any number of serial killers who targeted prostitutes, but these killers have invariably been heterosexual men. Can anyone tell me if I've missed a discussion/explanation of this issue? Thanks.