|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
Tumblety, Francis
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Specific Suspects:
Contemporary Suspects [ 1888 - 1910 ]:
Tumblety, Francis
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 08 January 2002 - 02:37 pm |        | Hi, Peter:
Great. Thanks for those additional thoughts. This information is of great use to me. I also think that based on the address 218-220 N. Liberty Street, a location in the older part of the city, it is probably a lodging house, which is where I had assumed we would find him. Interestingly this location would have been within around a half a mile from the archdiocesan headquarters of James Cardinal Gibbons to whom Tumblety left $1,000 under his struck down Baltimore will of 1901 and $10,000 under his validated St. Louis will signed in April 1903 the month before his death. To anyone who knows Baltimore, it is in the vicinity of the Baltimore Arena, down the hill from the Basilica of the Assumption, the original Roman Catholic Cathedral of Baltimore, built by Benjamin Henry Latrobe in 1822.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Christopher T George
Monday, 14 January 2002 - 02:48 pm | | Hi, all:
Investigation by me on Saturday showed that the building that housed the lodging house where Dr. Tumblety lived in 1900, as determined by Peter Birchwood from the census for Baltimore City, may still be there. Land records will have to be checked to verify that the street numbering now is as it was in 1900 but my investigation showed that 220 North Liberty Street today is a three-story Victorian building in good condition, occupied by a lawyer's office, with a greasy spoon hamburger joint at the corner of Clay Street at 218 North Liberty. Peter has I think identified the right location because Major Joseph Kemp, named as executor in Tumblety's Baltimore will of 1901, was the office manager for a firm of bankers and brokers at 211 North Liberty Street, a location now demolished to build the modern Charles Center office complex.
The North Liberty Street location is thus close to the scene of the great Clay Street Fire of 1873, the subject of an article by me in a Baltimore magazine, The Urbanite. As mentioned in the article, the fire steam engines used by the fire department at this date were popularly known as "steamers" which might give us a hint at some of the noises Kate Eddowes may have made before she was taken into custody in a drunken condition and was said to be imitating a fire engine.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Sarah R. Jacobs
Monday, 21 January 2002 - 10:22 pm | | Hi Again--
I don't really see what would be so odd about Jack/Francis Tumblety *pretending* to be a homosexual. Yes, this would have brought the censure of the world upon him, but so what?
I don't think that this was a man who really minded bringing the censure of the world upon himself. In fact, as I explained -- but obviously not very clearly -- in my last post, I think he would **welcome** the world's disapproval and scorn.
Look at it this way: If we take into account the fact that the only "Jack the Ripper" Letter that can reliably be forensically linked with anyone who might actually be Jack, then we must face the fact that he proudly / says that he is writing FROM HELL /.
This is a man who takes pride in, as Enfield, who is Mr. Utterson, Esq.,'s man-about-town younger cousin in _Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde_, "carrying it [the explaining-away, to her parents and doctor, of his near-thrillkilling of a young girl, by "juggernaut"-like trampling upon her chest] off so, really like Satan."
"From Hell" is the address of a man who is Santa's anagram. He is a man who might certainly have gotten his inspiration from the then-a-searing-sociopsychological and moral blockbuster and potboiler, which was made into a West End triumph as soon as possible. It is certain that our Frankie Tumblety, wishing to appear a fashionable aesthete, would have seen the play.
He would, just as certainly as Eddie Gein collected badly-written Ripley's-Believe-It-Or-Not-caliber crapheaded "true accounts" of South Seas cannibalisms and human-skin suitmaking; as surely as Leonard Lake and Mr. Ng collected thier own porno; as surely as Ted Bundy collected violent pornography (to show to the Commission on Obscenity and Pornography's Ed Meese and Jesse "Senile Fundamentalist" Helms in exchange for a few more miserable and unearned months on our planet, and, of course, for his own personal use in the lockup in prison); as surely as all of these others collected exciting tales of mayhem / , so did Francis Tumblety, probably part of them in the shape of _Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde_ the novel.
He probably would have used it for his defense if poor Mr. Hall Cain hadn't truned up to be his perfect foil. The lad never had a chance. No more than Stephanie, Ted Bundy's wife of at least a year while he was killing, had a chance. These people are foils, smokescreens, unwitting shams, proscenium arches behind which the killer may duck when the heat begins to really sear their asses.
Sarah |
Author: Katrina
Sunday, 27 January 2002 - 07:32 am | | | This might seem a stupid question, but could it be possible that Francis killed any of his family? |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Friday, 01 February 2002 - 11:55 am | | Vaughan--Hello. This is in response to your remarks about Tumblety, i'll repeat this post on the appropriate board; but first off, let me apologise for misspelling your name earlier.
I think we have some common ground, but I do disagree with a number of your points.
I think your claim about Abberline's 'three possible stories' [implying muddled thinking?] and how they might reflect what the police thought of the 'American doctor' story is quite debateable. I certainly don't believe Abberline said three different things. It's highly improbable, for instance, that Abberline ever said anything about the Ripper being the 'highest in the land'. This is merely an unconfirmed story by the writer Nigel Morland. [As the Casebook puts it: "Morland claimed that Abberline told him that the case was shut and that "I've given my word to keep my mouth permanently closed about it." Abberline went on to say that "I know and my superiors know certain facts."and that the Ripper "...wasn't a butcher, Yid or foreign skipper...you'd have to look for him not at the bottom of London society at the time but a long way up." Given Abberline's other known statements about the case this should be treated with considerable scepticism and caution"] In other words, this is nothing more than a wild story that goes completely counter to the statements made by Abberline himself in the Pall Mall Gazette.
So perhaps we are now down to two statements.
But, as for Chapman & the American doctor story---this is part of the same statement! [The Pall Mall Gazetter article, again]. So sorry, but I'd say your implications are wrong. Abberline's suggestion was that Chapman went out & attempted to supply the wombs to the American doctor. So it's still quite clear that Abberline was taking the American doctor story seriously----and fitted his suspect to his theory of motive. Thus, I still disagree with the too-sweeping statement that the police "disregarded" the story. But let me be clear. I'm not saying the 'womb' theory is correct, nor am I saying that this necessarily has anything whatsoever to do with the suspicions against Tumblety. I'm just saying that we don't know that it was disregarded, and, it certainly completely obvious that it wasn't by Abberline.
Next you write: "Yes, he was arrested on suspicion, and was, uhhr, released...so that adds him to a long list of those investigated. It's more evidence than against Maybrick, but that ain't saying much"
Several things I'd say here. First, I think it is incautious to equate Tumblety with the many men who were picked up on suspicion and immediately released. The police had arrested Tumblety more than once during the Whitechapel scare[perhaps as many as three times] and they had a large dossier on him at Scotland Yard. They were in still in contact with two American police departments after he was given bail. Certainly true with the S.F. police department. So it is certainly not true that the police had lost interest in him; Littlechild's statement makes that plain enough. The interest was on-going. If this makes him about on par with Maybrick, a cotton broker in Liverpool, then I think I have to shrug and chuckle.
By the way, I should have been a little more specific about my comment about the October police interest in Tumblety. I wasn't actually claiming that Evans & Gainey had proven that Tumblety was 'the lodger.' I was actually referring to the America-by-way-of-Liverpool man that was known for 'slumming' as well as for staying in first-class hotels--the man that had left his letters and pornography in his hotel room. [This is the guy Paul Feldman tries to turn into 'Mibrac']. I can't by any stretch of the imagination supply proof that this is Tumblety. But I think there is a strong probability that it was, and I perhaps I'll elaborate on my reasons at a later date.
"Sometimes I think we don't use our own experience (of miscarriages of justice, of Police misleading themselves) to analyse the usefulness of this evidence. Which is why the Littlechild letter, thirty years after the case may not be as important as E/G have it!"
Well, I of course I agree with this to some extent. But don't we also know of countless examples of the police questioning and releasing the guilty party during an investigation? Indeed, isn't this quite common? [We'll have to await the outcome of the Green River Killer trial in the U.S. to see if we'll soon have another example]. 'It might not be important' is exactly right. It might be important is also exactly right. But I'd have to say that Littlechild's opinion is certainly much more important than the Maybrick diary. But yes, I certainly think it is valid for you to look elsewhere.... there's just no guarantee that this won't mean that you'll be looking in the wrong direction.
Your remark about Evans & Gainey abandoning Kelly is, I still think, an unfair assessment, and I don't see where I am 'wrong'. Words have connotations as well as denotations. 'Abandoning' gives a rather sleazy motive of fitting the evidence to fit the suspect. But I don't read it that way at all. In their appendix, Evans & Gainey discuss at some length the very interesting and intelligent speculations of Alex Chisholm that the 'Ripper' might have been in large part, a product of the media. The idea is a legitimate one, and I don't see that they abandoned Kelly in an off-hand manner in order to make Tumblety more palatable. Besides, I still see a contradiction in your argument. Evans & Gainey argue that Tumblety was out on bail on the 9th; so doesn't this make your criticism rather moot?
Again, I think it is legitimate to 'look elsewhere'. I just am skeptical that anyone will be able to take the existing evidence and offer a more convincing suspect than those that rely on the frustratingly vague and [probably unknowable] suspicions of Anderson, Littlechild, or Macnaghten.
Caz--Yes, that's precisely what I'm saying. "The case against him is reasonable whichever way we look at the evidence", because the evidence is insufficient to rule out Littlechild's suspicions.
It's not a very popular answer, I imagine. But I think the Whitechapel crimes are now out of the hands of the detectives and the lawyers, and in the hands of the historians. There's no crime scenes, no foresenisc evidence, no witnesses to question. One isn't going to look at the evidence and locate the murderer. One is going to dig through mountains of obscure files, newspaper reports, census numbers and old letters and rumors and find a probable suspect--and then do the very things that Vaughan finds so illegitimate...see if the he can be fitted to the evidence. And...yes!... the case finally compiled is going to be fairly shoddy and open to attacks on all sides. But it won't mean that the author is wrong. Not very satisfactory situation, I admit, but it is the reality of 114 years of ravaging time. Cheers, RP
Tumblety: "Police suspect. Prima facie, the best circumstantial case exists against him."--Nick Warren. |
Author: Vaughan Allen
Wednesday, 06 February 2002 - 11:10 am | | RJ,
I think we're going to have to agree to differ on points of this one (there's a surprise)!
Abberline: I was talking about the tradition of him mentioning Chapman to the man who caught him (I apologise for not having any of my books with me...). Even if one accepts that Abberline had one fixed idea--something we can't possibly know until his diaries turn up--, how much does this add to the case against T.?
But then I have to admit that Littlechild's paragraph on degenerates makes me less willing to accept his evidence (and doesn't he then get wrong where T. decamped from, and certainly doesn't seem to remember that T. was arrested on suspicion of actually committing the murders)...
You write: "If this makes him about on a par with Maybrick..."
But I didn't say that, in fact quite the opposite. I said..."It's MORE evidence than against Maybrick, but that's not saying much...' clearly implying that there's no evidence against M. at all...
You might be right in your suggestions over the use of the word 'abandoning', and I would be willing to say that this is the IMPRESSION I got from Evans' recent TV appearance. No, it's not what comes over from the latest version of the book, but there seems (again TO ME) to be a chain that requires a motive of T. The only motive so far advanced is the 'womb' one, which then leaves potentially only three victims.
As for the 'bail' issue. To me, there seems to be a certain amount of 'and another thing...' going on as protection of the T. theory: "Yes, he was out on bail (well, perhaps he was), but maybe even if he wasn't it doesn't matter because MJK (RIP) wasn't a victim (perhaps)". You know as well as I that much ripperology involves throwing down two or threee or more possibilities to cover the same events and hoping one might fit the facts.
You're right to point out that there is no proof over the lodger. There also is, as you say, no proof that T. was the slumming American with Liverpool connections (how rare one wonders was that?). So this strengthens or leaves the case unaffected depending how you perceive it.
I do notice that all the coverage at the time of T. was in the US press. Given the known contacts between Scotland Yard and the press agencies, this seems surprising if there was so much interest from the detectives. As an ex-pressman I have to admit I have the feeling that this is similar to the 'Congo Floods, thousands killed, Yorkshireman slightly injured' type of parochial interest we see all the time. Perhaps this bumps up his profiel vis a vis the many others who were arrested on suspicion?
Just a thought.
Just as a matter of interest though, do we have POlice files that say he was arrested on suspicion of the murders, or does this rely on the press coverage? I can't remember what E/G say?
I hope that makes sense, I haven't slept for a couple of days and am entering hallucinatory territory.
I'm off to me hammock!
Vaughan |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Saturday, 23 February 2002 - 08:21 am | | Did Dr. T have ties to legitimate medicine?
710 - HISTORY OF WYANDOT COUNTY, OHIO
CHARLES P. JONES, M. D., was born in Wales September 3, 1834. His parents were David E. and Ann (Price) Wales, also natives of Wales, and emigrated to America with their six children in 1837. They settled at Utica, N. Y., where they resided till 1847, when they removed to Ohio, locating in Portage County, where they purchased fifty acres of land, on which the father died in 1856, aged sixty-nine years; the mother passed away August 29, 1882, aged eighty-three. 'Five of their eight children are still living Jane A. (widow of Robert Jones), Winnifred (wife of John C. Jones), Mary L. (wife of Asba P. Burris), Charles P. and John C. The deceased are Edward, Ann F. and David E. Charles P., the subject of this notice was educated in the public schools of Cleveland, abandoning his studies at eighteen. He subsequently engaged in a mercantile establishment as salesman, attending school at intervals, and began the study of medicine at Toronto, Canada, in 1856, under the instruction of Dr. F. Tumblety, remaining with him nearly four years. In 1857, he entered the Toronto Medical Institute, graduating in 1859. In 1860, he began the practice of his profession at Chicago, Ill., where he remained one year, when, on account of failing health, he was compelled to suspend his practice for about one year. He subsequently resumed his practice, and in 1865 located at Nevada, where he has since been engaged. He has a good practice, and has accumulated considerable property as a result of his labors, owning a good house and a two-story brick building on Main street, Nevada, the same costing $5,000 in 1880. Dr. Jones is a member of the Northwestern Medical Association; Medical Examiner of the Knights of Honor, of which order he is also a member; member of the Lutheran Church, and a Republican in politics. He was married at Bucyrus, June 27, 1860, to Emma E. Caldwell, daughter of Judge Hugh R. and Ann (White) Caldwell, three children having been born to them; Gussie E., born May 14, 1875, is the only one living; Lewis, A. and Charles N. are the deceased. |
Author: Christopher T George
Saturday, 23 February 2002 - 08:23 pm | | Hi, R.J.:
Thanks for posting this. I also noticed that bit of "history" on the net. Several thoughts come to me.
First of all, it might not be "our" Dr. Tumblety with whom Dr. Charles P. Jones studied. It probably is though because Dr T is known to have been in Canada at the time, and to have arrived in Toronto in 1856.
Second, if it is our Dr. T, perhaps Jones was unaware of Dr. T's less savory aspects, which were apparently more widely publicized later in Tumblety's life, after Jones had severed ties with the good doctor. This though seems unlikely because Dr. T was arrested in Toronto on September 23, 1857 for attempting to procure an abortion for a prostitute of the name of Philomene Dumas. He was cleared on the abortion charge a month later.
Note that the account indicates that Jones was with Dr. F. Tumblety for four years, 1856-1860, after which he began a practice in Chicago. At the same time that Jones entered into his practice in Chicago, Dr. T arrived in St. John's, New Brunswick. It was there that a patient, James Portmore, died under "very peculiar circumstances" on September 25 after which time Dr. T. skipped town. Here also Tumblety was labeled a "pretentious humbug and vulgar charlatan" (Stewart Evans and Paul Gainey, Jack the Ripper: First American Serial Killer, pp 192-93).
Third, another possible is that perhaps Jones himself was not quite what he appeared to be and may have been a quack like Tumblety.
In any case, it seems indicative of Dr. T's shady background that there do not seem to be any other attestations that Francis Tumblety was regarded as a highly legitimate and well-regarded physician.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Sunday, 24 February 2002 - 06:44 am | | Chris--Hi. It's also been said that Dr. Tumblety moved his business from Toronto to Montreal during this time. So another possibility is that Tumblety set-up Jones to run his Toronto business while he moved on to greener pastures. It would be interesting to find out a little more about the "Toronto Medical Institute". It's hard to imagine that a clothing salesman could become an effective physician after a two-year program! On the otherhand, Jones did become a member of the Northwest Medical Association.
You're right, of course, in saying that Dr. Tumblety's background was shady. He was certainly a 'quack'. Is it possible, though, that he was getting some exposure to 'mainstream' medical practices through his assistant Jones? I don't know. I'd like to know a little more about this period of Tumblety's life.
Incidently, sometime ago I happened upon an article about modern-day 'quacks'. The quack physician almost always believes that he has some legitimate medical knowledge. It's possible that Tumblety had convinced himself that he was only being persecuted by the established medical community. Cheers, RP |
Author: Christopher T George
Sunday, 24 February 2002 - 11:24 am | | Hi, RJ:
My impression of Dr. Francis Tumblety is that he was very well aware what game he was up to. Rather than convince himself he was "only being persecuted by the established medical community" I think he knew he was not properly qualified but kept up the act that he really was qualified, as such quacks do today as well. The veneer of respectability is essential to such charlatans even if their past indiscretions usually give them away.
In regard to whether Tumblety was in Toronto for the entire period 1856-1860, I rather think so, although he may have "practiced" part time in Montreal. One of the problems in trying to track him is that he seems to pop up in a variety of places and his entire movements need to be better nailed down, something I am presently trying to do in working with period newspapers and official records.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Monday, 25 February 2002 - 07:26 am | | Chris--Hi. Yes, I agree that it would be nice to nail down Tumblety's movements a little better. I'm happy to hear you're doing some work on tracking Dr. T's time in Baltimore.
If you'll notice, the Philomen Dumas scandal was actually in Montreal, not Toronto. Evans & Gainey have someone named 'John Guy' as Tumblety's assistant in Montreal at this time. So if the 'Charles P. Jones' information is correct, then the answer might be that Tumblety was doing business in both cities simultaneously, and had set up these assistants in different 'offices' to keep the business going while he traveled. This is merely a working hypothesis, but I think it's a possibility. I've also seen it claimed that Tumblety had an office in New York around the same time---so maybe this might explain some of the confusion.
As for the nature of Tumblety's "practice", I think the jury is still out. The quack doctor as a peddler of colored-water might be somewhat of an over-simplification. There were other 'Indian herb doctors' and 'herbalists' working America in the mid-19th Century; it's probable that they had standard 'cures' for various ailments. Whether Tumblety used roots & herbs according to some system or whether he just randomly sold patients colored water & chemicals is something I'd like to know. Possibly he did both. But it's interesting to me that in both Montreal & New Brunswick his initial reaction when getting in trouble wasn't to immediately fly-by-night [though he did that, too] but to hire lawyers, defend himself in the press, etc. Even the fellow Tumblety helped kill in New Brunswick through malpractice didn't get much better treatment from the orthodox doctors. They applied leeches and prescribed shaved ice and 'purgative pills'. I think the line between "quack" and "doctor" was a lot thinner in 1860. Best wishes, RP |
Author: Christopher T George
Monday, 25 February 2002 - 09:49 am | | Hi, RJ:
I agree that the line between orthodox medicine and quack medicine in the mid-nineteenth century was thinner than it would be later, which might explain why Tumblety was able to function as a "doctor" and maintain the veneer of legitimacy. As you know, the popular press of the day was filled with patent medicines and supposed "cures" offered by various pills and potions. Today, the line between the physician who practices medicine and the pharmacologist is clear and sharp. Then, however, Tumblety was able to prescribe his own medicines, something that a modern physician doctor does not do, unless he is a chiropractor or some other individual posing as a "doctor."
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 26 February 2002 - 03:13 am | | Hi, again, R.J.:
Here is a rundown on Tumblety's whereabouts in 1853-1860 from a timeline prepared by Stewart P. Evans. As you see, Tumblety pops up in a number of locations in Canada and in Buffalo, New York. Your hypothesis might be correct that he practiced in various locations but had an assistant carrying on the practice when he was not there. As you can see, there are numerous gaps.
1853 - In London, Ontario
1856 - July 18 - In Hamilton, Ontario
November - Arrives in Toronto, Ontario
1857 - June 13 - In Quebec
Sept. 23 - Arrested in Montreal, Quebec, for procuring an abortion on a prostitute, Philomene Dumas
Oct. 1 - Bailed; lawyers are Irish sympathizers Bernard Devlin and Lewis Drummond
Oct. 6 - In Toronto, Ontario
Oct. 24 - Montreal Grand Jury fails to find a true bill and he is cleared of the abortion charge
Dec. 7 - In Montreal, Quebec
1858 - July - Practicing in Toronto, Ontario
circa February 12 - Leaves Toronto
February 14 - In Buffalo, New York
By September, in St. Johns, New Brunswick, where the carpenter James Portmore died in suspicious circumstances on September 25.
Hope this information helps, RJ. I have not double-checked this list against the Casebook newspaper archive or Magpie's newspaper archive, both of which might provide information which could fill in some of the gaps if they provide articles on Tumblety for this period.
All the best
Chris |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Wednesday, 27 February 2002 - 06:07 pm | | | Chris--Many thanks for the above. I also have a tentative claim that Tumblety had an office on Broadway, New York City [near Sixth Avenue--close to the St. Nicholas Hotel] sometime during the same time-frame. Possibily 1858, 1859, or 1860. Will try to check it out, by and by. Best wishes, RP |
Author: Christopher T George
Monday, 08 April 2002 - 01:44 pm | | Hi, all:
Yesterday, I was able to check in the Maryland Room of the Enoch Pratt Free Library in Baltimore in microfilm of the Sanborn fire insurance maps for the city in 1890 to determine whether the buildings where we believe Dr. Tumblety lived here in 1900 have the same street numbering today as in 1900. In Volume 2, Sheet 54, I verified that the buildings shown at 218-220 N. Liberty Street ARE the same buildings where Peter Birchwood found Dr. Tumblety in lodgings in the 1900 U.S. Census. Success! These period buildings are namely a carryout restaurant at 218 N. Liberty and a law office at 220 N. Liberty specializing in criminal law and medical malpractice. Dr. T would have been proud.  I will have slides of the buildings to show at the upcoming April 19-21 US Ripper convention.
Incidentally, I have been interviewed by the Baltimore City Paper for an article to appear in this Wednesday's issue in advance of the convention and among the things we discussed was Dr. T's Baltimore connections. If anyone would like a copy of the article, e-mail me privately.
I am still looking for the 1903 Baltimore Sun article which states that Tumblety was popularly known in Baltimore as "Miss Francis." I did though cull from the Sun new information about Major Joseph R. Kemp who was the executor named in Tumblety's 1901 Baltimore will. The day after Dr. T's death on Thursday, May 28, 1903 in St. Louis, Kemp and his wife and his landlord, Adam Gunther, and wife had a hearing at Southwestern Police Station in a fight about damage allegedly caused by a cat. And you all thought Diddles was the only cat in the Ripper case. Not so! The article was headlined "But What About The Cat? Starts Trouble, But In Court Gets Lost. Trial Of Gunther vs. Kemp. P*ussy Responsible For Severing Of Ties That Once Bound Two Families Together In Bonds Of Affection." Baltimore Sun, Saturday, May 30, 1903. [Excuse the asterisk... the program said I used profanity!!!!]
In this rather involved and long if amusing article over a storm in a teapot, I was able to get another address for Kemp, as Gunther's lodger at 18 North Pulaski Street, and confirm his age as 69 years in 1903. Knowing his age in May 1903 should facilitate identification of Kemp in Civil War records. I also found that his lawyer in the suit between himself and the landlord was Charles A. Simpson, one of the witnesses to Tumblety's 1901 will.
All the best
Chris George |
Author: chris scott
Sunday, 08 December 2002 - 06:31 pm | | 22 Batty Street
It may be of interest to some that Ive found 22 Batty Street (the house with the "fleeing lodger") in the 1881 census. Household at that time was:
John Aston (head) aged 41 born Stafford Gun Maker
John Aston (Son) aged 17 born London Gun Maker
Charles Aston (son) aged 13 born London Scholar
Jane Aston (daughter) aged 10 born London Scholar
James Roberts (lodger) aged 25 born London Gun Maker
Regards
Chris Scott |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Monday, 09 December 2002 - 02:45 am | | | Little wonder he fled the house someone probably threatened to shoot him !!! |
Author: Chris Phillips
Sunday, 29 December 2002 - 03:39 pm | | I just came across the "Narrative of Dr. Tumblety", published in 1872 - described on this site as "a series of paranoid ramblings and fraudulent testimonials" - on the University of Michigan's website:
http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?sid=d28ca9e4123a83d8f7943c3fb080f6bc&c=moa&idno=ADH4174.0001.001&view=toc |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Sunday, 29 December 2002 - 03:42 pm | | Chris Phillips,
Great--many thanks for posting this.
Cheers,
Dave |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Sunday, 29 December 2002 - 09:59 pm | | | This is the 2nd edition of the "Kidnapping of Tumblety", originally published in 1866. It's greatly expanded from the original. Tumblety's 1889 pamphlet contains much of the same material, too. Oddly, Dr. T seems to have come out with one of these pamphlets everytime he landed in a major fix. |
Author: brad mcginnis
Sunday, 29 December 2002 - 10:41 pm | | | Thanks for finding this Chris. I wonder how such an important guy has he became lost to history, unless of course, he was a legend in his own mind. Thanks again, Brad. |
Author: Howard Brown
Sunday, 29 December 2002 - 11:18 pm | | | Hey Chris !! Terrific job !! This would not happen to be the book that the Library of Congress has in it,would it ? My memory fails me.......Howard |
Author: Christopher T George
Monday, 30 December 2002 - 08:49 am | | Hi, Chris, Howard, David, Brad:
I think Tumblety and D'Onston were indeed legends in their own mind which is what makes them both fascinating suspects whether or not they were Jack the Ripper. Indeed, in both cases, it is difficult to separate their self-promotion from their candidacy as Ripper suspects.
All the best
Chris George |
Author: chris scott
Monday, 30 December 2002 - 09:04 am | | For those interested in the Lincoln assassination trial, a full transcript is available at
http://www.surratt.org/su_docs.html |
Author: Christopher T George
Monday, 06 January 2003 - 11:06 am | | Hi, all:
Here is an Isle of Man website about Sir Henry Hall Caine with whom Dr. Tumblety is said to have carried on a homosexual affair in the early to mid 1870's. Included are links to excerpts of Caine's books about the Isle of Man if would like to sample his writing.
Hall Caine
What is interesting to note is that Hall Caine was a conspicuously short, dapper little man, while Tumblety was tall, around six feet tall also with a penchant for showy costumes, so they must have made quite a pair. Interesting too is to note that on this site they say that Hall Caine was a "consummate self-publicist" which is certainly true of his sometime friend Dr. Tumblety as well.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: chris scott
Sunday, 09 February 2003 - 05:24 pm | | One little oddity that may be of peripheral interest re. connections with the Lincoln assassiantion. John Wilkes Booth's sister, Asia, moved to London and at the time of the 1881 census was living at 110 haverstock Hill under the name of Asia Clarke, having married actor John Clarke. At the time of the census they had 4 children ranging in age from 21 to 13. Asia died in 1888 but I have not yet been able to establish the date
For more info see
http://www.surratt.org/su_jwb.html
Chris S |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Sunday, 09 February 2003 - 07:27 pm | | This past weekend I was helping several friends
from the Casebook Boards on researches at the
42nd Street Library. I was reading the New
York Herald for November 1888, and found two articles in it regarding the arrested and
released Dr. Tumblety. The first was in the issue
of Tuesday, Nov. 20, 1888, on Page 7, col.3, and
the second on Wednesday, Nov. 21, 1888, Page 5,
col.4.
Basically the two items gave a historical background to Dr. T's. history in the Civil
War period (say 1864 - 1865). He was an
eccentric figure in the city of Brooklyn, near
Fulton Street (oddly enough, near where I work
these days). He had a love of dogs, and liked
to walk with a number of them. He also wore
outlandish uniforms. He apparently did not mind
(he may even have relished) the nickname of
"Humpty Dumpty" that was tossed at him.
Tumblety was an herbal doctor, according to the
detective from Brooklyn who is quoted in the
first article. He was (apparently) a successful
one. But he was also known as "Blackburn".
The second article said that he was suspected
of being involved in a plot by a southern doctor,
Dr. Luke Blackburn (hence the a.k.a.), which was
part of a series of fifth column type plots
that unfolded in 1864-65. These included an
attempt to burn New York City in November 1864
[see Nat Brandt's THE MAN WHO TRIED TO BURN NEW
YORK (Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse University Press,
1986)], and a plot to invade a New England State
(the raid on the banks of St. Albans, Vermont, in
October 1864). Dr. Luke Blackburn's plot was to
send clothing that was infected from people with
typhoid, cholera, and other diseases to Northern
cities.
Jeff |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Monday, 10 February 2003 - 07:54 am | | Hi Jeff. Ironically, the so-called 'Yellow Fever Plot' was based on the mistaken belief that Yellow Fever could be spread through clothes, etc., where we now know that one can only be infected from mosquitos. Luke Blackburn was actually thought of as a philanthropist down in Bermuda where he helped ease the epidemic; the bad press didn't hurt him any and he went on to be a successful humanitarian, doctor, and a governor of Kentucky.
Tumblety's link to Luke Blackburn was entirely the flub of a newspaper editor. The two stories 'broke' at around the same time and became garbled. |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Monday, 10 February 2003 - 08:52 pm | | Hi R.J.
Actually, from looking up "Luke Blackburn" on
the internet, I found that the name is now
also linked to a famous horse. I don't know
if they are linked (the horse's name and
Governor Blackburn - who served from 1879 to
1883).
I can't blame Blackburn for his misunderstanding
of Yellow Fever. Dr. Walter Reed did not discover
the source in mosquitos until the last decade of
the 19th Century.
Jeff |
|
|
|
|
