Author: Neil K. MacMillan
Tuesday, 10 April 2001 - 04:23 pm |        |
| I don't neccissarily discount Tumblety as a suspect but I recount that the New York Herald claimed in its article about Tumblety's death that he had been completely exonnerated of the Whitechapel murders. I personally favor him as the most viable suspect but is there documentation to warrant the Herald's assertion or were they avoiding a lawsuit? Kindest reguards, Neil |
Author: Brad Caldwell
Wednesday, 18 April 2001 - 10:44 am | |
Hi all! I've just found out about Tumblety as I am new to the field of the Ripper. After reading a number of posts and replies I am curious as to why Tumblety's sexual orientation is in such debate. Would it really make much of difference if he was heterosexual or gay to link him to being a suspect? Honestly, I would like to know (I'm trying not make this sound like a social commetary). I have read that serial killers really do not stray from their own sexual orientation but I think that a serial killer's mind differs from most of us. Who is to say that a serial killer wouldn't go against what is generally thought? In the case of Jack would his sexual orientation make a difference of who would be suspected and who wouldn't?
 Brad |
Author: Mark List
Wednesday, 18 April 2001 - 12:59 pm | |
Brad,
For the most part, Tumblety's sexuality would only apply if he killed other men. In most sex crimes, if the person is homosexual, his victims are usually of the same sex.
Here, for instance, the thought is (and I say this because this is an odd belief that really doesn't apply) that Francis HATED women SO MUCH that he became a homosexual and acted his vengeance on those he despised.
It sound really silly I know, but it is a belief of a few people.
With Tumblety, as I have read, he "keep jars of uteri" as his home in America. But a lot of things about him are RUMORS. So who really knows?
But since Littlechild named him as a suspect (RE: the Littlechild Letter) I would say he's just as likely a suspect as anyone else...I don't have a Favorite Suspect although the three people that have caught my attention as suspects are Maybrick, Barnett and Druitt.
But you can't really say "who dunnit" after 113 years, you can only speculate.
Good luck in the hunt,
Mark |
Author: John Omlor
Thursday, 19 April 2001 - 09:52 am | |
Scott writes:
"Thanks Saad- And send all samples you can of Tumblety's writing. Holmes- New Scotland Yard."
Hey there Saad,
Forget the handwriting, please send those "bad pics" they found "in his bag." "Dr." Watson - feeling ignored ever since Holmes took the new job. |
Author: jb savstropm
Saturday, 12 May 2001 - 01:47 pm | |
If I wanted to know who Jack was, I would have to start examining his peculiar writing style, and his mispelled words, in the letters he sent to the police. Certainly this suspect Tumblety, being a DR, has something he wrote somewhere.
Also, I believe that to say a serial killer wont kill woman because he is gay, or that he or she would'nt change their m.o. is unwise.
Maybe that is why so many murders go unsolved. |
Author: Avril Sprintall
Monday, 14 May 2001 - 03:31 pm | |
| As Tumbelty was regarded as a very flamboyant person, I can't imagine that any witnesses would not comment on this fact. Surely someone with his style of dress and air of self importance would stand out no matter how he tried to disguise himself. |
Author: Martin Fido
Tuesday, 15 May 2001 - 06:08 am | |
Would it be fair to Tumbletonians, Avril, to suggest that they might reasonably conjecture that an intelligent man might well assume some sort of alteration of his familiar general appearance before going out to look for victims in public places to murder in dark corners?
Martin F |
Author: Avril Sprintall
Tuesday, 15 May 2001 - 05:17 pm | |
It would, but I have not been convinced that Tumblety was an "intelligent" man.It has always seemed to me that he was an exhibitionist and as such was so sure of his own self importance that he would probably relish the fact that he could be spotted, but convinced that he would never be caught. There have been instances of his type throughout history.
I merely state my opinion, and as such would not expect everyone to concur. I apologise if my comment seemed ingenuous but for me, the main interest in JTR is that we all have varying ideas and could never say "I am right, you are wrong". |
Author: Martin Fido
Wednesday, 16 May 2001 - 07:23 am | |
Nothing ingenuous about your forming such an opinion, Avril. All fair enough.
Martin F |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Wednesday, 16 May 2001 - 03:49 pm | |
Dear Avril,
An "exhibitionist" describes Dr T's perambulations
through London quite well, I thought. He is almost a mirror-image of M. Druitt in his personality...and horror of horrors they may have shared the same vice, according to the nuances of the sages.
But what wit that final act of charity, eh?
Rosey :-) |
Author: Chris Livesey
Wednesday, 23 January 2002 - 08:21 pm | |
Hi ,
To me this guy is the most likely , the fact that he fled bail is interesting...his character and form seem to fit in with those of the killer.
Also , the assertion that homosexuals kill homosexuals maybe generally true as history shows , but tumblety doesn't fit in with this group very well. He seems to have ended up homosexual by default through the experiences with his wife , and despised women so much that turned to homosexuality.
I also believe that Kelly wasn't a ripper victim , so whether he was in custody or not at this time may not be important.
Anyway , you are welcome to disagree with me!
Cheers , Chris. |
Author: Ally
Thursday, 24 January 2002 - 12:54 pm | |
Hi Chris,
So do you think Barnett killed Kelly? If not then who? And why do you think she wasn't? |
Author: Arfa Kidney
Friday, 25 January 2002 - 01:17 pm | |
Hello Chris,
To say that Mary Kelly was killed by anyone other than the Ripper is madness.
Although Kelly's body was far more extensively mutilated than the other victims,the position of the body was identical to that of Eddowes' when it was found and I don't think such details where made public at the time.
The quirkiness of arranging the viscera was also the same in each case.
It amuses me when people talk about Jack's MO and claim that he couldn't have been responsible for
for say Eddowes' murder because the knife wounds didn't follow the same geometrical pattern as Annie Chapman's!
Of course I am exagerating but do you see my point?
Regards,
Mick |
Author: jennifer pegg
Saturday, 26 January 2002 - 09:57 am | |
i thought even s. evans didn't believe he was the ripper anymore
or am iwrong
i don't mind if i am.... |
Author: Monty
Saturday, 26 January 2002 - 11:30 am | |
Jennifer,
To be fair to Stewart, he has never stated that he believed Tumblety was definitely Jack but that he felt that he was the most likely.
Its something that I think he still stands by but obviously Im not talking for him here, only the man himself can do that.
Monty
 |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Saturday, 26 January 2002 - 12:10 pm | |
Yes, quite right Monty. The simple fact is that we will never know for certain who the Ripper was. As an individual you can read all there is, perhaps do some research yourself, and then decide on your own personal choice for the most likely.
People seem to forget that I was interested in this case for well over thirty years before I found the Littlechild letter and Tumblety. It was then obvious that as a new and, more importantly, genuine, contemporary suspect he needed researching (which resulted in a book). He was a suspect identified by ex-Chief Inspector Littlechild and not a name plucked out of thin air, by me, to build a case against.
However, it is more important to me to maintain total objectivity (if possible), to keep an open mind, and to consider all options. Therefore, as you may be aware, my last three books are as accurate and objective as they possibly can be. In that way no suspect bias affects my view of the facts, and all options are kept open.
Stewart |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Saturday, 26 January 2002 - 09:34 pm | |
| Hi Stewart,Hope you are well and in good health.I was reading an article from the Chicago Tribune dated Oct,1888. It was in relation to the now famous story of the unknown American in London who was offering money for specimens of the parts taken from several of the victims. The reporter stated that he was informed by a detective at Scotland Yard that the man had been discovered.He was a physician from Philadelphia with a large practise,who was over here preparing a medical work on specific diseases.He went to Kings College Hospital and Middlesex Hospital and asked for specimens.The statement that he offered 20 pounds each is said to have been a delusion of the Coroner. These facts were given to the police by an eminent London physician who saw a great deal of the Philadelphian when he was here. The London physician would only divulge the information on a written guarantee from Sir Charles Warren that neither his name nor the name of the physician in question should be given to the public.The physician had gone back to the states, and his mission here was purely legitmate. If this story is correct then Dr Francis Tumblety cannot be tied in as the physician looking to purchase body parts. It is also interesting that the fee of 20 pounds per item was alleged to be a delusion on the part of the Coroner and thus yet another false myth. |
Author: jennifer pegg
Sunday, 27 January 2002 - 04:49 am | |
| sorry my mistake |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Sunday, 27 January 2002 - 05:30 am | |
I'm fine thanks Ivor, though just struggling to get over a very bad cold. Yes, I do have a copy of this article but, as with all of them, we have no real corroboration one way or the other as to the correctness of the story. It is interesting for the new information it contains and for the fact that Baxter was still espousing the theory after the Chapman inquest.
The crucial point is at what date did the alleged attempted purchase occur? It was believed to have been possibly as far back as the previous year. With various aliases and false credentials the strange American may still have been Tumblety. However, I have never stated that it was him, although Phil Sugden has always thought that it may have been. And, of course, even if it was it doesn't make him 'Jack the Ripper'.
What is patently clear is the fact that such an incident did occur, so it cannot be dismissed lightly. Of course, it would seem that Baxter's idea was that the murderer was 'some depraved person' murdering the women to obtain wombs to sell to the rich American doctor.
Just another of those vexing minor mysteries that surround the Ripper case. |
Author: david rhea
Sunday, 27 January 2002 - 09:31 am | |
| After reading this story I wondered just how many books he was planning on printing providing a uterus with each one and paying 20 pounds each. |
