|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
Jack the Ripper: First American Serial Killer (Evans and Gainey)
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Media: Specific Titles:
Non-Fiction:
Jack the Ripper: First American Serial Killer (Evans and Gainey)
Author: James Wilson
Thursday, 19 November 1998 - 12:20 am |        | 'The Lodger', by Suffolk, England, policemen Paul Gainey and Stuart Evans, presents compelling evidence that Jack was actually an American surgeon named Francis Tumblety.
They base their argument on a letter written in 1913 by the Chief Inspector of Scotland Yard - a document that languised in someone's attic for 40 years before being brought to the attention of a London antiquarian - the authors make a powerful case.
Tumblety hated women, ever since he discovered that his wife was working part in a brothel; he kept a collection of wombs ina big glass jar (after all, the Ripper specialized in disembolment!), and his landlady turned him in to the authorites after discovering fresh blood on his shirt, just after the fifth and suposed final Ripper murder. He was brought in for questioning, but skipped bail and returned to the United States. After that, his trail grows dim, but he is thought to have set up practice in Central America. And several Ripper-style murders took place in Nicaragua, shortly after Tumblety disappeared from North America. |
Author: Adam Wood
Thursday, 19 November 1998 - 12:21 am | | I've been reading the Tumblety book (just finished!). I think "The Lodger" is the American title; it's the same authors anyway.
The theory centres around a letter written by Insp. Littlechild to the journalist George Sims in 1913. In it he states that one of the suspects was called Tumblety (although says he's a likely one, not THE suspect). Further states there's a large dossier on Tumblety in Scotland Yard (not stated whether Ripper or Fenian-related).
This dossier cannot be found, and Evans and Gainey believe this is due to a police cover-up to avoid humilation after Tumblety was arrested and allowed to escape back to USA. No UK press coverage, but loads in US papers.
Evans and Gainey believe Stride was killed by her lover Michael Kidney. After publication of hardback version, they discovered Tumblety was probably in custody on night of Kelly murder, and in the revised paperback version I have they believe either Tumblety was charged but not held on the night in question, or Kelly was killed by Barnett in copycat murder!
I think Tumblety is a plausible suspect, but i'm not convinced on this evidence. |
Author: Cyranna Eco
Thursday, 19 November 1998 - 12:21 am | | I believe Mr. Wood is right when he says this book has at least two titles -- the copy I have is entitled Jack the Ripper: First American Serial Killer and is penned by Stewart Evans and Paul Gainey as well. I have been told this is the same book as The Lodger.
Regardless, I just received a copy of this work recently and was quite anxious to read it, as I hadn't a chance to catch the Secret History programme on Channel 4 some weeks ago. In fact, the forward to this book is written by David Jessel, presenter of the Secret History programme.
As regards the book itself... I truly did want to give this book a chance, but it just didn't convince me. The writing style and organization of the text is flawed throughout the work -- the grammatical errors should have been caught by the editor, and they make it quite difficult to gleam information from the work when the reader is too busy trying to discern what the author really intends to say! The organization, however, is its greatest downfall. It begins with a chapter on Abraham Lincoln's assasination, and though it was interesting and grabbed my attention straight off, it stood out from the work as a whole like a solitary tree in a vast expanse of desert. It turns out that Tumblety's involvement with the assasination was virtually inconsequential, the result of an alias mix-up, but this information isn't revealed until 170 pages later! So for the first two-thirds of the book, the reader is left wondering what in the world the first chapter has to do with the rest!
Worse still is the organization of the Tumblety information and the Jack the Ripper facts -- the first 160-170 pages are a complete run down of the Jack the Ripper murders, information available in practically any work on the subject, with perhaps four or five scant comments concerning Tumblety thrown in for good measure. Of course, these comments mean nothing to the reader because Tumblety has yet to have been introduced to the reader! Even worse, the authors continually make reference to Littlechild and the Littlechild Letter hundreds of pages before they are explained as well! The reader is left completely in the dark until the last fifth of the book, when all is "revealed."
Unfortunately, very little is revealed at all. The authors claim that some of the most damning evidence against Tumblety is his collection of uteri from "women of all classes" which he had shown guests while living in the States. Yet this "evidence" is corroborated by one singular statement in the entire book, a quote taken from a Colonel Dunham. Nothing else is given to corroborate this fact. It may very well be true, but the fact that it remains virtually unsubstantiated and that the authors rely so heavily upon this one man's statement leads me to suspect that perhaps this was one isolated comment made by a man who may either have been mistaken or possibly wanted to cause some kind of a stir (as Dunham was interviewed after being told that Tumblety was a suspect).
The authors also make little note of Tumblety's age at the time of the murders (55). Witness accounts place him at between 28 and 36 years of age, and only one witness strayed as high as 40-45. They provide no reason for this, other than their simplistic statement that all the witnesses must have been mistaken.
The authors also fool the reader into thinking they have evidence that Tumblety lived at 22 Batty St (the street across from Berner St) -- they write as if it is an ascertained fact, and then some chapters away they add only that they "have sufficient reason to believe" that he lived there. Their "sufficient reason" is that there was one of many Lodger complaints against someone at that address, and since Tumblety was in London at the time, well then, that had to have been him. I need more evidence than Stewart and Gainey's "gut feeling."
Still, it is interesting to note that Scotland Yard was highly interested in Tumblety, and that he was arrested two days before Kelly's murder as well as three days after. He was released on bond and then "fled" to America on a steam ship under an assumed name. What bothers me is the authors' statement that police officials from Scotland Yard as well as the NYPD were waiting at the docks when his ship came in. They knew he was on the ship, and yet he slipped by them? There might be two or three exits from a boat, and there were claimed to have been dozens of officers there -- something smells fishy.
My questions is: If Tumblety was SY's number one suspect, why was he not mentioned anywhere by Anderson or Macnaghten or anyone else but Littlechild? Why did they bother with Polish Jews and insane barristers when they had such a promising suspect? Why would they cover it up?
The Tumblety theory is not 100% foolproof, but it is relatively strong. I would love for some more authors to research and write about the theory, both the pros and cons of it. I have to admit that I am impressed that Nick Warren (Ripperana) actually wrote in the Foreward, "This is the most complete and believable portrait of a Ripper suspect ever created." I find that statement to be a bit hyperbolic, especially considering the reasoning put forth by Stewart and Gainey, but don't proclaim to know half of what Mr. Warren knows -- perhaps I'm missing something.
In short -- get the book. Read it for yourself -- the theory is promising, though the manner in which it is presented is obviously rushed and unprofessional. If nothing else, it has a new photo of Mary Kelly which I personally have not seen before, and it will probably be a good reference guide for the plethora of books I'm sure is in the works to either refute or back up this new theory. |
Author: Joseph Frazier
Thursday, 19 November 1998 - 12:21 am | | | I feel that this work has some plausible "evidence," but find the excuses used for not apprehending this alleged murderer to be a little thin. All in all, I think that more research into this footnote to history. "An enigma wrapped in a riddle." |
Author: Helen Morgan
Tuesday, 15 December 1998 - 05:45 am | | Hi all,
I apologise if this is deemed an inappropriate use of the list. I noticed in the discussion 'Defining the Whitechapel Murders' that Stewart Evans' book The Lodger was remarked by Yaz as being out of print etc. (and it doesn't come up at amazon). I have found it at my local second hand bookshop but I think at $24AUD its a bit stiff. Is the book difficult to buy and should I snap it up while I can ?!
Cheers,
Helen |
Author: Yazoo
Tuesday, 15 December 1998 - 06:54 am | | Hi, Helen,
Stewart's book is back in print. I purchased a copy at my local bookstore (in America) aweek or so ago. But you can order it through Amazon.com (either the U.S. or UK sites). So it is no longer difficult to buy and, yes, in my opinion, it's worth buying -- even if you don't "believe" in Dr. Tumblety as a suspect, he's an interesting character. The American title, by the way, is Jack the Ripper: First American Serial Killer. Try looking it up locally (or at Amazon.com) under that title.
Yaz |
Author: Joe Tynan
Saturday, 10 April 1999 - 12:07 pm | | | I agree with Yazoo that, although the book doesn't totally convince me of Tumblety's guilt (a plausible suspect, however), it is a good read. Especially because Tumblety was such a strange, mysterious, contemptible character. What the book did convince me of was that we should strongly reconsider the general assumption of the "canonical five" Ripper victims. The authors make some excellent points that Liz Stride and (perhaps) Mary Jane Kelly were not Ripper victims. |
|
|
|
|
