Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Maybrick, James: 25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith - by MrBarnett 10 minutes ago.
Maybrick, James: 25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith - by jmenges 37 minutes ago.
Maybrick, James: 25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith - by Abby Normal 38 minutes ago.
Martha Tabram: Probibility of Martha Tabram Being a JtR Victim - by Abby Normal 41 minutes ago.
Martha Tabram: Probibility of Martha Tabram Being a JtR Victim - by Wickerman 44 minutes ago.
Maybrick, James: 25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith - by MrBarnett 45 minutes ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - (83 posts)
Maybrick, James: 25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith - (19 posts)
Martha Tabram: Probibility of Martha Tabram Being a JtR Victim - (12 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Was Jack caught by London underworld? - (4 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Only one suspect can be shown to have carried a knife. - (2 posts)
General Discussion: IWEC members - (2 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Suspects > Tumblety, Francis

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #41  
Old 10-12-2017, 03:36 PM
c.d. c.d. is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,422
Default

"And remember folks.. we are all suppose to be on the same team.. looking for the same thing... the truth..let's not forget that."

Well said and a point that merits repeating.

c.d.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 10-13-2017, 07:27 AM
rjpalmer rjpalmer is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 100
Default

Wolf, no offense, really, but to be perfectly blunt, these are the sort of weak arguments that lead many people to suspect that you have a personal agenda, rather than are attempting any sort of serious analysis.

These "hundreds of articles" you referred to earlier on this thread consist largely of advertisements, cursory court proceedings, descriptions of people who once saw Tumilty wandering down the sidewalk in a military uniform, a couple of manslaughter cases where he didn't even appear before the Coroner, people who remember him handing out barrels of flour 30 years earlier etc, etc. None of them actually mention his voice, but you attempt to make it sound like there was some sort of unspoken consensus or some hidden meaning to be gleaned from this fact. But of course, you and I both know there isn't. They didn't mention his toe nails, either, so from that we can draw conclusions about what his toe nails looked like?

By contrast, the one account that actually specifically describes the tenor of his voice states that it was effeminate. It describes the very thing that you implied didn't exist.

It is hardly surprising that Victorian era journalist seldom spoke of such things. But after FT's 1888 troubles in London and after the Cleveland Street scandal of 1889, when such things became topical, it became more relevant and thus it was mentioned by the Washington Post in 1890. Even Tim Riordan--who I personally believe often misinterpretted the data--called this "revealing." If you can't figure it out, let me spell it out for you. Many people in the United States had long suspected Tumilty's sexual proclivities, but they never stated it openly. After it was stated in the world press in 1888 that he had run afoul of the Crimes Against the Persons Act, they no longer held their tongues. So when FT was picked up on suspicion in D.C. in Novemeber 1890, the police strongly suspected that he was crusing for young males, hence the journalist felt it relevant to metion that he spoke in an "effeminate voice." The Washington Post reporter is giving you a not so subtle clue, Wolf. Even Riordan picked up on it, but you wish to dismiss this. "it tells us little." Horse pucky. It tells us a lot or at least it tells me a lot. But the most relevant point is that this was published 15 years before the 1905 court proceedings, which, of course, entirely demolishes your original comments made on these boards. Yet, to your way of thinking THE ONLY ACCOUNT WE CURRENTLY HAVE of the actual tenor of FT's voice before 1905 means "very little." Why? Obviously because you want it to mean "very little." Enough said.

No, I didn't mention Tumblety's height. Why would I? It's irrelevant, but evidently you seem to believe that being 6' or 6' 1" is evidence that he isn't intersexed. If that's your genetic kite, feel free to fly it, but don't expect me to endorse it or even comment on it. As Simon Wood might say, "it need not detain us."

Frankly, I don't even feel like responding to your strange Dunham theory. I may have misstated FitzSimon's role in the litigation, but you are misstating Dunham's actual modus operandi. If I recall, what he and his cronies did was find probate cases where there were either no claimants, or there were claimants that didn't wish to proceed. They would then file suit themselves and use impostors, etc. Is that what you are suggesting happened in the 1905 case? Based on what evidence? Or are you simply spreading random doubts? And yes, Dunham was exposed. He was so spectacularly exposed that a hundred years later he had a biography wrtten about him. How is this relevant? John Dillinger robbed banks. In fact, Dillinger robbed lots of banks. How does that make Joe Blow a bank robber? If you truly wish this to be your historical argument, let 'er Rip. But don't expect many people to endorse it if you're not going to offer more than a few half-baked innuendoes. The average student of the case has become far too sophisticated for such vague arguments. Further, it is going to be very difficult for you to come back later and claim you looked at the evidence carefully, impartially, and dispassionately when you already began weaving random doubts before it was even presented in its entirety. I plan on withdrawing from this conversation. I believe that these new developments may be far too important to be undermined by random speculation beforehand. I am withholding judgement until I actually see all the data. Have a good afternoon. The floor is yours.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 10-15-2017, 07:56 AM
mklhawley mklhawley is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Greater Buffalo, New York
Posts: 1,846
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolf Vanderlinden View Post
Hi Mike.



Two weeks gone and I’m still waiting for you to provide the evidence that my files contained the Washington Post article, that I found it, yet ignored it, and that I, therefor attempted to mislead people with my post. Are you still looking? Or what? Can’t wait to see what you will come up with.

By the way, I did subsequently find the Washington Post article online. There’s an interesting thing: remember I was pointing out that the physical descriptions of Tumblety given in the depositions did not seem to be supported by hundreds of newspaper articles, printed over more than a 50 year span? Remember that Tumblety’s supposed womanish figure was not supported anywhere? Well, what do you think Mr. Palmer decided not to mention from the Washington Post article? The line “Dr. Tumblety is an enormous man, over six feet in height, with broad shoulders.” Why not, since that was one of the things we were discussing? Looks like cherry picking to me. Want to comment?

Wolf.
Wolf! You're back!

Your two weeks "tic tock" clock is a red herring, so enjoy your broken clock.

Speaking of Fitzsimmons faux pas, the Mary who received $10,000 was Michael's sister, not wife. Charles Fitzsimmons was on the list also, and he was an upstanding General who lived out his life in Chicago. He was a very upstanding citizen.

Wolf, get over it. The volume of recent evidence (not just the St. Louis evidence by the way. There is more, so enjoy the future.) confirms that Stewart Evans was right all along, and those who made their ripperology name by allegedly debunking his Tumblety discoveries have been found to be dead wrong.

Of course you have to say Norris was paid off, but you also have to say his attorney Frank Widner was paid off (a man Riordan claims was absolutely right), four other attorneys and a judge (all of whom know the consequences of lying under sworn testimony). The same side of the court battle who used these witnesses also used a priest and a mother superior.

Your argument has gaping holes in it just like your argument that human-hater meant Tumblety was gay.

By all means, keep on digging your hole.

Sorry Wolf.

Mike
__________________
The Ripper's Haunts (Sunbury Press)
http://www.michaelLhawley.com

Last edited by mklhawley : 10-15-2017 at 08:02 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:17 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.