Archive through 08 January 2002

** 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 08 January 2002

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Specific Suspects: Contemporary Suspects [ 1888 - 1910 ]: Tumblety, Francis: Archive through 08 January 2002

Author: Jon Tuesday, 20 March 2001 - 09:33 pm
Tom The note that brother William 'found', alluded to suicide "...since Friday, I felt I was going to be like Mother, and the best thing for me was to die", nothing to do with embarrasment, but then again we do not know the actual contents of that letter, we only have a paraphrase by the editor from a reading by the coroner.......whether these words were verbatim or not is anyone's guess. Regards, Jon
Author: Jeff Bloomfield Tuesday, 20 March 2001 - 10:58 pm
Actually, while the school would make sure there was no leakage, Monty decided to see if he was water tight. Sorry Seriously though, when referring to the so-called suicide message, it is usually assumed that Monty is afraid he is going insane like his mother has gone insane. Has anybody actually found anything out about what was wrong with Mrs. Druitt, why she was in the asylum (yes, I know it has to do with her mental condition, but I mean what has caused the mental condition) and whether there was any behavior of Mrs. Druitt that was not only crazy but definitely anti-social (did she attack people?). By the way, is it true Monty played cricket with a sticky wicket? Sorry again. Jeff
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Wednesday, 21 March 2001 - 05:51 am
Hi Tom, But if Druitt knew it, and the school knew it, and Druitt drew the conclusion that others might get to know it too, if the school's knowledge was not as watertight as a duck's a*** after all, then private embarrassment had the potential to leak and become public disgrace. There has been some discussion over brother William's 'finding' of the suicide note, and the suggestion that it was bogus. Perhaps he just wrote a more acceptable one, citing his mother's known mental problems as the reason for Monty's downfall, to steer others away from the uncomfortable bottom line scenario. I think many gays today would see your suggestion that homosexuality is an affliction as rather a sore point. Love, Caz
Author: Tom Wescott Wednesday, 21 March 2001 - 10:59 am
Jon, Not to be rude, but suggesting that Druitt's brother rewrote his suicide note is like suggesting Abberline lent support to Hutchinson's witness statement because he didn't believe it (Hinton's book), meaning it's possible, but not likely. There's about as much evidence that Druitt was batting for the other team as there is that he was the Ripper. Actually, there's less, because no contemporary personality seems to have suggested it. It's purely a modern theory. Of course, it is possible, though. Jeff, I believe it pointed out, perhaps in Howell and Skinner's 'Ripper Legacy', that Druitt's family has a history of mental illness. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't think so. If I am somebody is sure to point it out! Cute jokes, by the way. Caz, Frankly, I couldn't care less about what gays think of what I said. If they want to believe they were born that way, great. I won't stop them. But I don't buy that. I also don't believe you're born a serial killer or a pedophile. Science seems to concur with me. Now, enough of this. Let's stay on discussion. Yours truly, Tom Wescott
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Wednesday, 21 March 2001 - 11:21 am
Hi Tom, There's about as much evidence that Druitt was batting for the other team as there is that he was the Ripper. Actually, there's less, because no contemporary personality seems to have suggested it. It's purely a modern theory. Macnaghten wrote that it was alleged that Druitt was sexually insane, whatever was meant precisely by that statement. I don't know. I can't imagine anyone would choose to be born gay if they could hear the world talking while they were in the womb, but I guess stranger things happen. I didn't start this particular - ahem - deviation from topic. But I think one must expect a response when one makes obviously controversial statements on any topic. Love, Caz
Author: Jeff Bloomfield Wednesday, 21 March 2001 - 06:24 pm
Tom, I haven't read Howell and Skinner's Ripper Legacy, but I was aware of the history of mental illness. What I was trying to find out though is the nature of the mental illness of his mother. Is it that she was seeing things, or had increased senility, or what? You see, it could be that Mrs. Druitt might have been violent in her insanity. Maybe she attacked people but was prevented from killing any. Maybe Monty was beginning to realize he had been attacking people too, but they were less fortunate than any his mother attacked (if she attacked any). Then the note begins to take on a different meaning. I mentioned on a different thread in the Casebook Boards that my knowledge of insanity and the treatment of the insane is limited. But I am aware that much of the terminology of 19th Century psychiatry is obsolete, and frequently it is purposely vague to protect the families of the patients. In 1881, for instance, a young man named Percy Mapleton was hanged for killing a man named Frederick Gold on a train to Brighton. Mapleton's father, a retired Captain, had died in 1879. It was usually said that the older Mapleton suffered from "softening of the brain" but his death certificate shows he had turned into an alcoholic. Jeff
Author: Jon Wednesday, 21 March 2001 - 07:01 pm
Thats OK Tom, I can accept your point of view, have you read Howells & Skinner's 'The Ripper Legacy' ? They bring to light just as much if not more convincing circumstantial evidence for Druitt being murdered, as other authors do for Ripper suspects, and I suppose you know Keith Skinners reputation for research. Regards, Jon
Author: Lisa Muir Thursday, 22 March 2001 - 03:02 pm
Tom - This isn't "on discussion", but I just have to know, do you have scientific evidence that homosexuals are not "born that way"? Or does that just pertain to serial killers & pedophiles? You seem to lump them all together. Did I miss something? Has Anita Bryant been preaching again?
Author: Tom Wescott Friday, 23 March 2001 - 10:04 pm
Caz, I stand corrected. I completely forgot Macnaughten made the 'sexually insane' statement about Druitt. Of course that's not an authoritative opinion, but I was indeed wrong when I stated no contemporary personality suggested Druitt was gay. And I don't believe I made any controversial statements. I don't believe that gays wake up one day and make a conscious decision to not be attracted to the opposite sex. I am of the opinion that it is a phenomena that takes root early in life and advances to it's later stages once the sex drive kicks in and matures. In the case of women it does seem to be the case, in a number of instances (but, of course, not all), where women make the decision to be a lesbian later in life. Ann Heche is a good example of this, but certainly not the only one. A lot of gays agree with this as do the majority of the scientists researching homosexuality who do not have an agenda. I don't claim to be a scientist or know all the data, but I have done my reading and believe my opinion is somewhat educated. Jon, You don't need to accept my point of view on Druitt. I am by no means an authority on him (obviously). I have just noticed that Druitt being gay has, over the years, become accepted as fact when it hasn't been ascertained. My theory of embezzlement is just that, a theory. I offer it up as a very possible alternative to why he was fired from Blackheath. And as to Druitt having been murdered I have no opinion. That certainly doesn't make him either gay or the Ripper. Lisa, I don't know Anita Bryant and won't speak for her. Yes, you did miss something. Tah-tah. To all, Anyway, enough about Druitt and the bleeding hearts. I believe that whoever the Ripper was he was a heterosexual. His crimes were sex crimes. His victims were women. Serial killers tend to kill within their own preference. If Tumblety was indeed gay, as seems to be the case considering the information R.J. posted, then that, along with his flamboyance, are the two main factors that weaken the case for Tumblety having been the Ripper, at least in my opinion. Yours truly, Tom Wescott
Author: Colleen Andrews Friday, 23 March 2001 - 10:09 pm
Why couldn't Tumblety have been bisexual? And why can't bisexuals be serial killers?
Author: Lisa Muir Friday, 23 March 2001 - 10:20 pm
Tom - You're wrong;I was hoping I had missed something, but you've made it perfectly clear that I didn't. Pity.
Author: Triston Marc Bunker Friday, 23 March 2001 - 10:34 pm
Right, I've listened to far too much here. I feel the need to say something, no joking from my part here. I am totally pissed off with the lot of you. I have a gay brother and I have been a keen observer of him. Once I believed, in all the forms of arguments that you have on offer, I offer you my argument. Being homosexual is both mentally chemical and up bringing. We see men without the upbringing leaving their wives. The men with the up bringing and chemicals don't get married, full stop. I think it has to be the self denial that makes this killer, if he so happens to be gay. I want people who disagree with me to argue with me. I promise you won't have a leg to stand on. For once, this is me being very, very serious. Tris
Author: Lisa Muir Friday, 23 March 2001 - 11:32 pm
Triston - Why do are you upset with me? I haven't argued one way or another as to why gays are gay. I've only spoken out against what are Tom W.'s seemingly homophobic and/or prejudiced opinions. There was no way I could read what he posted without commenting - not if I wanted to sleep nights.
Author: Triston Marc Bunker Saturday, 24 March 2001 - 12:21 am
Lisa, Oh you young fool. I wasn't having a go at an individual. I was having a go at a general idea. If you feel like I have isolated you personally, I truely haven't. Everyone deserves a true belief, if yours rubs against the grain of mine, then good fo you girl and keep it uo. Tris
Author: Lisa Muir Saturday, 24 March 2001 - 12:38 am
Triston - It was your "I am totally pissed off with the lot of you" comment that I was referring to. That's all. Thank-you for the response, though - I haven't been called a "young" anything for years!
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Saturday, 24 March 2001 - 04:26 am
Hi Tris, We have something in common - I too have a gay brother. But Tom's quite safe - my bruv already has a partner. He also has a very well-developed, ahem, sense of humour on the subject. Love, Caz
Author: Kelvin Maxwell Tuesday, 03 April 2001 - 08:16 am
First time on this board. Forgive me if this matter has been raised before but in the report of Tumblety's death in the New York Herald of 26th June 1903, when commenting on his possible involvement in the Whitechapel murders, it states that he was." entirely cleared of this charge," Is this the case? and if so where is the source for this exoneration? Comments would be appreciated. Regards, KJM
Author: Christopher T George Tuesday, 03 April 2001 - 11:17 am
Hi, Kelvin: We have no evidence, despite statements in U.S. newspapers following Tumblety's death on May 28, 1903, in St. Louis, Missouri, that he was "entirely cleared" of the charge of being Jack the Ripper. On the other hand, British records show that he was brought up on charges of gross indecency and probably was not charged with murder even if he was suspected of being the Whitechapel murderer. The Littlechild letter implies that he was not cleared of the suspicion that he was Jack and remained a likely suspect. He was though one of a number of possible suspects investigated by the police. Best regards Chris George
Author: Jon Tuesday, 03 April 2001 - 09:33 pm
Following on with Chris..... I think the American press might be taking a liberty there....properly speaking to be "cleared of a charge", you must be "formerly charged" in the first place, which we might say with some degree of certainty that he never was. Regards, Jon
Author: Kelvin Maxwell Tuesday, 10 April 2001 - 09:35 am
Chris/Jon, Thanks for the feedback - much appreciated. I know Tumblety was never formally charged as you point out, but the point I was really trying to make was - were the American press privy to information that would allow them to make such a definite statement of his innocence ? I know this is supposition but are there any NY police files available that would explain WHY charges were never brought. After all, Scotland Yard don't seem to have been too diligent in their pursuit of Tumblety once in the States. Regards, KJM
Author: Christopher T George Tuesday, 10 April 2001 - 10:52 am
Hi, Kelvin: I am sure Jon would agree that Dr. Francis Tumblety was a self-promoter and exhibitionist. I would not be surprised if the information that he had been "entirely cleared" of involvement in the Whitechapel murders was fed to the American papers by the good doctor himself. He might have thought it would be good for business to push his pimple cure. I may be wrong, but I would doubt that the newspapers on the American side of the Atlantic had any information from Scotland Yard to say that Tumblety truly was cleared of suspicion of complicity in the murders. Best regards Chris George
Author: Jon Friday, 13 April 2001 - 02:06 pm
One of the things that struck me after reading Stewarts first book was these apparently unsubstantiated claims/accusations that Dr. T's name "was mentioned in connection with the murders", did not seem to originate from legitimate police enquiries. That claim in itself is too vague to be of any help except as a possible introduction line to strike up conversation or to centre a conversation on himself. The phenomena of the Ripper murders & the idea that Jack was a Doctor could very easily have been milked for all its worth by this character who made well known claims of having been in the intimate company of various hob-nobs and 'pillars of society' both in the new world and the old world. The Ripper murders were on everybodys lips and in order to connect himself with the 'hottest' topic of the century,....well, he could hardly have claimed to have met Jack himself.....so maybe he claimed the next best thing,....to make sure his name was mentioned in connection with those murders......which might have been enough to get people's attention, but is a suggestion which has more icing than cake. He was a salesman and charlatan, the above may not be true, but I think it is entirely plausible, given the nature of the man. I was always interested in how those seperate news reports originated, and especially the one statement by a 'detective' who arrived in America and made some remark about following a suspect (I dont have the text in front of me) but I also wondered, given the strong Irish sentiment in some parts of North America, that any police interest in Tumblety as regarding his Irish connections, could have caused them to make an excuse about their 'suspect' is 'wanted in connection with the murders'.....as so many people were in those days. This would cause less trouble for the British police in America than let the truth be known.....that is, they were following him to see what these Irish connections actually were. Regards, Jon
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan Saturday, 14 April 2001 - 07:52 am
Dear Jon, Not a claim so easily dismissed. A close friend of Sir Hall Caine...who hob-nobbed with Royalty! Em... Rosemary
Author: Jon Saturday, 14 April 2001 - 10:32 am
Thankyou Rosemary I guess you could use that argument in favour of Druitt then also. Remember that old song.... "The anklebone's connected to the shinbone, the shinbone's connected to the thighbone,....etc...etc..." It does not mean the anklebone was connected to the thighbone.
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan Saturday, 14 April 2001 - 11:07 am
Dear Jon, The holistic answer might be...one can't work without the udder! I notice you walk with odd limps...no kneecaps? Rosemary :-)
Author: Martin Fido Monday, 14 May 2001 - 10:36 am
My slow process through old archives has brought me to Tumblety. A great while ago Vic Tambling queried the authenticity of the Littlechild letter. Since that challenge has not been repeated, I hope all doubts have been laid to rest. The letter was examined by the excellent former police document examiner who pronounced the Maybrick diary forged for the Sunday Times. She found paper and typing consistent with its date; the signature and handwriting consistent with Littlechild's known writing. The letter is fully authenticated to the satisfaction of all serious Ripper historians and puts Tumblety decisively among the tiny handful of suspects who must be considered seriously. The boards circulate unhappily around the question of Tumblety's sexuality and the gender of the Ripper's victims. There is no question that bisexual killers can be shown to have killed across gender lines. Equally there is no question that certain homosexuals have married, even fathered children, and then settled into an exclusively homosexual pattern of life. Oscar Wilde is an obvious example. So John Wayne Gacey's early marriage doesn't affect his standing as a homosexual killer who killed males exclusively. What is asked of those who think Tumblety's guilt is not contra-indicated by his apparent sexual preference is an example of a homosexual killer who exclusively killed women. I don't know of one. Neill Cream, cited from time to time as parallel with Tumblety, was rampantly heterosexual, and frequently appears to have engaged in completed sexual acts before leaving cyanide pills with his victims. Unconscious homosexuality (suggested in Sutcliffe's case) can bhardly be directly relevant when we are considering a man who ws charged with gross indecency against young men. Whether he liked women or not, Tumblety was undoubtedly aware of his own homsexual tendencies. The letter itself shows that Littlechild, although explicitly declaring that Tumblety was not a sadist, held the curious delusion that homosexuals ('those given to Contrary sexual instincts and degeneration') were also sado-masochists ('given to cruelty'). 'Even Wilde', he tells us, 'liked to be punched about'. This is fascinating information coming from a knowledgeable source, since Littlechild was one of the Marquess of Queensberry's detectives picking up evidence against Wilde. I don't know of anywhere else that this claim is made: the trial evidence was that Wilde like to 'play with' the boys, by which one assumes they meant fondle their genitals. Littlechild then goes on to give an example of Harry Thaw's finding a pretext to cane and salt-bath a hotel messenger boy. This is again, extraordinarily interesting from the crime history point of view. Thaw was unquestionably a sadist. But at this date (1910) his noted sadistic exploits were all with women: most notoriously with his wife Evelyn ('the girl in the red velvet swing') on whose account he shot her former lover Stanford White; and with prostitutes in Paris. It was not until 1916 that Thaw was publicly charged with an act of homosexual sadism. Where, I wonder, did Littlechild get the information that thaw - still incarcerated having escaped the White murder charge on an insanity plea util 1913 - had homosexual tendencies? In any case, what we have to conclude from the letter is that, although Littlechild was sure Tumblety was not first and foremost a sadist, he would not have ruled him out from suspicion of being the Ripper on that account, since his attitude might be described (with thoroughgoing political incorrectness) as being 'One way or another all these fairies are into sexual violence'. The 'profilers' have also had a good circular going-over on this board, too, so it's probably worth reasserting that Robert Ressler and john Douglas started out from Stewart's feeling that as police officers they had some knowledge of criminal types through direct experience, but decided it would be well worth putting that on a more solid statistical basis by interviewing as large a number of sadistic killers as possible, at the same time being aware of the probability that they were going to hear quite a lot of lies and self-justification, so that their 'results' neded careful checking and comparison. David Canter in England is so far from putting his 'psychological' knowledge above that of experienced police officers that his current work is an attempt to codify and prepare for computer analysis, if possible, the tiny elements of unconscious observation that go to making up the skilled detective's 'hunch'. It looks baffling and mathematically incomprehensible to the unitiated, and has been rubbished accordingly by Canter's rival Paul Britton. But Britton is the only psychological profiler who uses his expertise to deduce the offender's probable fantasies from the crime scenes, and draw up profiles accordingly. It was he who, with Home office endorsement, encouraged Scotland Yard to use the dubious method of looking for a suspect to fit a profile. Canter and Douglas - who, with Roy Hazelwood are the only profilers known to me to have published opinions on the Ripper - are always perfectly clear that their work should only be used as an aid to prioritizing among suspects already identified by traditiolnal police methods. It seems a pity that as much work isn't going into Tumblety as is going into trying to identify the probable forgers of the Maybrick diary. Study of Tumblety undoubtedly helps in improving our knowledge of Ripper history. I don't think the diary has anything to offer on the events of 1888. With all good wishes, Marin Fido
Author: Christopher T George Monday, 14 May 2001 - 11:49 am
Hi, Martin: Thank you so much for your interesting thoughts on the candidacy of Dr. Tumblety as a Ripper suspect and on the contents of the Littlechild letter. It is remarkable that Littlechild covers a lot of ground in this one letter. I noted your comment that although the letter was written in 1913 (you wrote 1910 by mistake I think [the letter is dated 23rd September 1913]--maybe you were thinking inadvertently of Anderson's 1910 reminiscences????), Harry Thaw's homosexual sadism was not commonly known until 1916 when he was publicly charged with it, yet Littlechild cites the anecdote about Thaw finding a pretext to cane and salt-bath a hotel messenger boy. I am hoping to have some more information to report on Tumblety's activities in the Baltimore-Washington, D.C. area for the U.S. convention next April. Dr. T in a lot of ways is an enigma because, as Jon Smyth indicated above, as a quack medic Tumblety appears to have been purely a pills and potions man and therefore apparently did not wield a knife contrary to the common myth of the mad sadistic doctor as a Ripper suspect. The term "Doctor" when applied to him is in fact misleading because Francis Tumblety in his "medical" practice may never have done any surgical operations. To my knowledge, the abortions he was suspected of conducting were done using abortifacients, i.e., drugs, not surgery. Thanks again, Martin, for your interesting and informative remarks about Dr. T and the Littlechild letter. Best regards Chris George
Author: Martin Fido Monday, 14 May 2001 - 02:40 pm
Sorry about that date slip, Chris. I was reading the facsimile in Evans and Gainey, and I guess my varifocals didn't settle at the clearest level on the date, which I actually misread. Looking forward to your further information on the subject. With all good wishes, Martin
Author: Jon Saturday, 23 June 2001 - 12:57 am
http://www.vintageviews.org/vv-tl/biographies/pages/JR_ad.html
Author: Kevin Mitchell Wednesday, 01 August 2001 - 03:47 pm
I have just begun delving deeply into the Jack the Ripper case and am therefore reading Sugden's `The Complete History. . .' which, I am given to understand, is by far the best book on the subject. The first thing that puzzles me is that, given Tumblety's long-standing popularity as a suspect - the Casebook makes a strong case against him, there appears to be no mention of him in Sugden's book (certainly not the index). Can anyone explain this?
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden Thursday, 02 August 2001 - 02:47 pm
Hello Kevin, It is incorrect to state that Tumblety has a "long-standing popularity as a suspect," as he was basically unheard of until 1993. Sugden's book was published in 1994 and while Stewart Evans had already obtained the Littlechild letter, which identified Tumblety as a suspect, the year before, his research into Tumblety was not fully published until 1995. Sugden however, had known of the contents of the letter before publication of his book but wrote, "Since this document has not yet been made available to the public I am unable to comment upon it's contents." (The Complete Jack the Ripper, page 507 [note 18] ) Hope this helps, Wolf.
Author: Kevin Mitchell Thursday, 02 August 2001 - 03:41 pm
Hi Wolf I based Tumblety's "long-standing popularity as a suspect" on the Casebook's inclusion of him as a contemporary suspect: of course he was mislaid for many years. However, the casebook shows him as a popular suspect then, and a popular suspect now. Sugden does mention the letter to the effect you state in the six year old revised paperback edition of 1995 (purchased this week). However, the note you quote [p516] is in reference to a paragraph on knowledge of suspected hoaxers of the Ripper letters, and to my mind is used in this context, rather than relating to the identity of The Ripper. At the end of the main text [p480]it does state that the Littlechild letter mentions a "very likely" suspect and reveals the names of "two pressmen believed at the Yard to have concocted the `Dear Boss' letter." Apparantly all will be revelaed in the third edition. Kevin
Author: Christopher T George Friday, 17 August 2001 - 10:38 am
Hi, all: As noted on another thread, I will be making a presentation on Dr. Francis Tumblety at the upcoming Ripper Weekend in Baltimore, April 19-21, 2002 and will have information to share on Tumblety's time in Baltimore and Washington. Anybody who has new information on Dr. T's movements in the United States before or after the Whitechapel murders of 1888 is encouraged to contact me. Your help would be most appreciated. Best regards Chris George Organizer, Jack the Ripper Weekend 2002 BWI Comfort Inn, Baltimore, April 19-21, 2002 http://www.casebook-productions.org/
Author: Sarah R. Jacobs Wednesday, 02 January 2002 - 06:20 pm
LISSENUP! Truth be told, we are not looking for a homosexual. We are not looking for a heteroseuxual. We are not looking for a bisexual. We are not looking for a transsexual, a hermaphrodite, or an ephebe. We are not even looking for a pedophile (one who has sexual feelings for prepubescent minors) or even for a pederast (one who acts upon his or her feelings for prepubescent minors). We are looking for a SEXUALLY SADISTIC SERIAL KILLER. This "sexual orientation" -- if you want to group the rest of us with Jack, which is, in my opinion, a mistake that only a nurture-never-nature kind of ascientistic, nobody-is-evil-but-some-have-always-been-misunderstood warm-and-fuzzy, let's-give-my-husband-another-chance-not-to-beat-me kind of future victim of an SSSK would make -- this "sexual orientation" demands a special kind of "one-night stand." It is the sort from which only one participant emerges alive. Sure, the JtR kind of guy might marry to cover up the fact that the kind of sex he finds truly pleasurable can only end in the other person's death (he might even have lots of sex with the wife or other partner, just to prove to everyone that he couldn't possibly be the man the cops are looking for; he also might find that his "family man" image brings in money at work -- the kind of money he needs to buy 1) himself all the things he wants and needs, though he has a hard time differentiating between the two, because his nonexistent sense of duty to others leaves him unable to restrain himself from self-overindulgence; 2) his wife and/or kids the accessories possessed by loved wives and/or kids -- he has no idea what he would buy her if he really loved her because he has no idea what "really loving someone else" is like, so he copies what others do, sometimes eerily exactly (e.g. "Mike down the street got his wife Diane a Shar-Pei, a 3-carat-total-weight diamond tennis bracelet from Cashier #3 at Sears's Department Store, and that new-model black beaded cocktail dress displayed in the window of Mimi's Boutique, in size 6, so I'll get Sharon the same things" even if Sharon is a size 4 or 8, prefers lime green, is allergic to dogs, etc.) The point is, let's not bicker about normal sexual orientations. They're not applicable here. Our Jack didn't hate women. He also didn't hate men. He just loved to destroy under the searchlights, because that was the only way he could get his sexual kicks. We often forget that not everyone has a conscience. We often forget that people such as Tumblety got thier kicks, not just from torturing and having power over women, but also from torturing homosexuals by pretending to be homosexual. To wit: He pretends to be a homosexual. He goes to a known gay hangout. He picks up a man and says horrid things to him, maybe even blackmails him into colluding with him (cf. Leopold and Loeb). He makes certain that he (but not his coerced accomplice) is seen and arrested for "lewd conduct" in a known gay hangout. He thus leads he police down the "pissy queen" primrose path, and the police, laboring under the then-scientific assumption that homosexual hate and fear women, say "Aha! See?! We were right this whole time!" But the rub is that Tumblety isn't really gay or straight: He's just Frankie out having the time of his life, "putting one over on the gals and the silly, scared, nelly little poofters," he thinks. How jolly. How sordid. How not as clever as he thinks. Anyhow, that's just my $0.02. Love, Sarah
Author: Ally Thursday, 03 January 2002 - 08:57 am
Uh... I probably missed something. Why exactly did F.T deliberately go and get himself arrested? And what primrose path was he leading the officers down? What were the police right about the whole time? I am not altogether functional this morning so small words would be good.
Author: Christopher T George Thursday, 03 January 2002 - 11:19 am
Hi Sarah: Following up Ally's post I think you are probably wrong in inferring that Frank Tumblety only pretended to be homosexual. Tumblety may well have been bisexual but certainly he was provably arrested enough times on charges of "gross indecency" with other men that we can infer that he actually enjoyed homosexual practices and was not just pretending! Best regards Chris George
Author: Arfa Kidney Friday, 04 January 2002 - 07:31 am
Hello Chris, I agree with you and also we mustn't forget Tumblety's relationship with Hall Cain. Regards, Mick
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood Tuesday, 08 January 2002 - 06:29 am
Hi Chris: Back on the 18th December you mentioned the time you had spent looking for Tumblety in the 1900 Baltimore Census. I have now a copy of the census page listing the Good Doctor. You'll find him in Baltimore City, ED 20 Sheet 14 at 218-220 N. Liberty. He seems to be a border in the house of Catherine Howard (sp. uncertain) a widow born January 1866, married for 18 years and the mother of 3 children, none living. She's born Chicago, her father in Vermont and her mother New York. She lives with her mother, Mary Coyle born July 1846 New York, a widow 38 years married with 5 children only 2 living. Mary's father is born Ireland and her mother in New York. Francis Tumblety is unique on this page in that his birth details and age are not listed although he is Single. He's born in Maryland and both parents listed as born in Ireland. His profession is that of Physician.
Author: Christopher T George Tuesday, 08 January 2002 - 11:50 am
Hi, Peter: Great! I thank you so much for turfing this up. A couple of weeks ago I spent a frustrating hour or so at the National Archives scrolling through some dimly lit and barely readable microfilm for the 1900 Soundex for the Baltimore census looking for Tumblety and never found him. So this is fantastic. My only question though is why does it say he was born in Maryland? This clearly was not true, and I understand from Stewart Evans that the latest information on his place of birth seems to be in or near Dublin, Ireland, circa 1830 rather than in Canada around 1833 as Gainey and Evans had earlier thought. Do you have any take on this problem? It's unfortunate that no age is given for the good doctor. Also, is the spelling the standard one of "Tumblety" or one of the many variations, "Twomblety" or so on?? Best regards Chris
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood Tuesday, 08 January 2002 - 02:02 pm
Hi Chris: The Good Doctor is listed as Tumblety and spelled that way but is not the head of house; just a boarder. I've now spent some time in going through the US 1900 census (mostly on the Orville Palmer estate where you helped me out. I have now located the heirs) and I can state that Frank is unique so far in not having his date of birth and age listed. Unless there are two Francis Tumblety's of Irish descent both claiming to be physicians, I would say that this is our man. Why would he say he was born in Maryland? Maybe he didn't. If he happened to be absent when the enumerator called but was at that address on the 1st January 1900, then the head of house would give his details according to how she knew them. And we do know that Frank delighted (rather like the late Mr. Crowley) in being a man of Mystery. And of course, as we do not as far as I know have a baptism for Frank, he might perhaps be as likely born in Maryland as in Ireland or Canada. I am expecting delivery of the CD of the US 1880 census and that might give additional info.