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:
Shades of Whitechapel: Centenaries - whole and half - by sdreid 7 minutes ago.
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - by caz 4 hours ago.
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - by Kaz 4 hours ago.
Maybrick, James: 25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith - by Kaz 4 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Varqm 4 hours ago.
General Police Discussion: J Division Fixed Point Whitechapel Station? - by The Station Cat 7 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - (21 posts)
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - (2 posts)
Shades of Whitechapel: Centenaries - whole and half - (1 posts)
Hutchinson, George: The Enigma That Is Richard Blake - (1 posts)
General Police Discussion: Police Orders 1st October 1888 - (1 posts)
General Police Discussion: J Division Fixed Point Whitechapel Station? - (1 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
  #51  
Old 11-16-2017, 11:18 AM
Wolf Vanderlinden Wolf Vanderlinden is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 461
Default

I want to continue with the part in Norris’s deposition where he runs to the Chief of the New Orleans Police to talk to him about Tumblety. This:

Now, I read and new of the White Chapel business and did know it at the time. I got a little scared of this man, and I went over to the Chief of Police, and told him of this fellow, and he told me that reminds him of the big tall man that he read of in the Chicago Herald, and Pittsburg Dispatch, as being Jack the Ripper, and I said, he answers the description.

The illogic of all this is telling.

First of all, how is it that Norris remembers, not just the two cities the Chief mentioned, but the names of the two papers? Out of State cities and papers. Norris is giving his deposition in 1905 and remembering all the way back to 1881, 24 years earlier. That’s another neat trick. This is especially true when one realizes that Norris was wrong on a few small points, as one would expect after the passage of time.

This is more smoke and mirrors.

By mid-November of 1888 the American papers were full of stories about Tumblety the Ripper suspect, this included the New Orleans papers (which ran some lengthy articles about Tumblety), and Tumblety coverage continued almost nonstop till mid-1889. Sporadic mention of Tumblety and the Ripper Murders would continue for the rest of Tumblety’s life and even after his death.

How is it that Norris, supposedly, missed all this? Wouldn’t Norris immediately recognize his old friend Dr. Tumblety? Instead Norris claims “I got a little scared of this man, and I went over to the Chief of Police, and told him of this fellow, and he told me that reminds him of the big tall man that he read of in the Chicago Herald, and Pittsburg Dispatch, as being Jack the Ripper, and I said, he answers the description.

Not, “Yes, I’m talking about Dr. Tumblety, the man mentioned in all the newspapers. I’ve known him for years but am now beginning to wonder about him.” Instead Norris gets suspicious of Tumblety, not because the North American newspapers were full of stories about him but because he supposedly had several surgical knives and talked about how prostitutes should be “disembowelled.” He then goes to the Chief of Police, tells him about “this fellow,” and agrees that Tumblety answers to the description of a “big tall man,” mentioned in two newspapers.

Norris is saying, in effect, that he didn’t really know Tumblety or his connection with the murders, became worried and asked the Chief of Police for his opinion about him as a possible Whitechapel Murderer. Norris then says that when he talked to Tumblety about the murders in London Tumblety responded by saying “Yes, I was there when it all happened” and so Norris states “Well, after he told me that, I tried to shun him.” He didn’t know from all the coverage that Tumblety was in London at the time of the murders?

Tumblety’s name was splashed across the headlines yet Norris missed it? Did all of Norris’s friends and family miss it too? No one pointed out to Norris that his friend, Dr. Tumblety, the man who “gave me a good time, took me to the theatre, and spent a good deal of money on me. He bought me several suits of clothes,” was mentioned in the newspapers in connection with the sensational Whitechapel Murders? Seems highly unlikely.

This all might make sense if Norris was talking about 1881, when he really didn’t know Tumblety, but not sometime after 1888, when he had supposedly known him for years. Norris is obviously making the whole thing up.

Wolf.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 11-16-2017, 11:24 AM
Wolf Vanderlinden Wolf Vanderlinden is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 461
Default

The supposed knives.

As I pointed out on the Tumblety: The Hidden Truth board, it is unlikely that Tumblety would have surgical knives with him, let alone “all sorts of large knives.

Tumblety wasn’t an actual doctor, let alone a surgeon, something Mike Hawley seems to constantly forget. He didn’t use knives in his quack medicine business. He was a Thomsonian and Eclectic physician. He sold herbal, botanical and vegetable cures “provided by Nature.” He was, in point of fact, an herbalist but an herbalist who was pointedly against the licenced medical profession. That’s how he made his living, by touting that he used natural alternatives to harsh, even poisonous, medicines and deadly surgical operations in which anaesthetic and sterile conditions were unheard of.

With blood our hands we never stain,” ran one of his advertisements, and, in another, one of his patients claimed he had “a large tumor of a cancerous nature removed from his head without resorting to the barbarous practice of cutting with a knife, as is usual in such cases.” This was what drew sick, desperate and scared people to his “practise”: the fact that he didn’t use knives or poisonous drugs to cure. He wasn’t likely to carry around surgical knives because his livelihood depended on his being seen to be against them and their use in medicine.

On top of this, as I pointed out, Tumblety's room in his Canal Street boarding house was searched by D.C. O'Malley, the shady detective who had arrested him after some sort of shakedown. One newspaper stated that O’Malley found “lots of burglars' tools and a box of medical instruments,” not “all sorts of” surgical knives. When O’Malley returned to see the judge, who had given O’Malley a warrant to search Tumblety’s room to bring back Tumblety’s supposed burglar’s tools, O’Malley had nothing to show. He claimed that “the burglars' tools and case of medical instruments had been removed during his absence.” (As I pointed out, why would medical instruments disappear from Tumblety’s room if, indeed, they existed?)

The judge then sent two New Orleans Aldermen to search Tumblety’s room for the supposed burglar’s tools. Not just look around but to search the room thoroughly. They reported back to the judge on what they had found (Tumblety's medals were mentioned, as were his letters and several testimonials) but there was no mention of any surgical instruments, let alone several knives, being found. And Mrs. Field, Tumblety’s landlady, stated that “there were no such articles in Dr. Tumblety’s room at any time.” She later gave a deposition about this to be used in Tumblety’s trial.

The New Orleans Police, as well as the judge, apparently, felt that the whole thing was a put up job and that O’Malley, and possibly Govan as well, were trying to shake Tumblety down. The case was thrown out of Court.

Norris’s claim that that the newspapers reported the finding of burglar tools, but then corrected themselves the next day to say that they found “surgical instruments” instead, is false.

So, speaking in 1905, Norris apparently told a lie about Tumblety owning several surgical knives – people in 1881 either couldn’t find any knives or categorically denied they ever existed. Norris then compounded this lie by adding another, sloppy, lie. But he doesn’t sound like a liar to Hawley.

Wolf.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 11-16-2017, 11:26 AM
Wolf Vanderlinden Wolf Vanderlinden is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 461
Default

Finally, a few years before Norris made his deposition, in which he claimed that the Whitechapel Murders took place before 1881, an interesting newspaper story was published about Tumblety.

The article mentions Tumblety’s arrest in London on suspicion of being the Ripper, then goes on to say that “later” he was arrested in New Orleans for robbing Govan, that the British Consul came to his aid and that the case was ultimately dropped. This, of course, happened in 1881.

So, a source the newspaper described as coming from New Orleans, writing before 1905, when Norris made his deposition, stated that the Whitechapel Murders happened BEFORE Tumblety arrived in New Orleans in 1881, the exact same story and timeline Norris gave. Did Norris read this and believe that the London murders happened before Tumblety came to New Orleans in 1881 and so worked it into his story, or, as seems more likely, was the New Orleans source Norris and therefore he had told (or sold) his lies more than once?

Either way, someone was telling a tale in New Orleans before 1905 that Tumblety arrived in the city in 1881 fresh from his arrest on suspicion of being Jack the Ripper and not nervously confusing the timeline because he was trying to hide his homosexuality.

Interesting, huh.

Wolf.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 11-17-2017, 05:34 AM
mklhawley mklhawley is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Greater Buffalo, New York
Posts: 1,859
Default

Wolf! You're back!

I haven't read your efforts to redeem yourself, yet, but I will. I did read the first, though, and if Riordan did indeed see these, then he purposely hid the truth. I, on the other hand, will believe the archivist who said NO ONE HAS REVIEWED THESE SINCE AROUND 1905. Have we uncovered a Riordan lie, claiming to have read them? He either did and held facts or he did not and claimed he did.

Mistake in your first post, and I haven't even started!

You started this.

Mike
__________________
The Ripper's Haunts (Sunbury Press)
http://www.michaelLhawley.com
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 11-17-2017, 07:22 AM
jmenges jmenges is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,242
Default

The information about T's probate and the fight over the will in Tim Riordan's 'Prince of Quacks' doesn't come close to even mentioning the issues brought out by Mike Hawley's and Sandknops disvoveries, which lead me to believe they were new. Otherwise why would Riordan ignore them? The issues that Wolf is addressing (impressively I might add)concerning the knives, and Norton's deposition are simply not in Tim's book. I like and respect Wolf, Mike and Tim but I don't like authors being accused of lying or purposefully withholding information to strengthen their case. Hopefully this informative back and forth can refrain from any more of that. I believe Tim still has an account here or myself or someone else can email him to find out what's what.

JM
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 11-17-2017, 08:14 AM
mklhawley mklhawley is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Greater Buffalo, New York
Posts: 1,859
Default

Actually, Jonathan, I knew of this issue when the archivist showed conclusive evidence that the documents were not opened since 1908ish and I was not going to bring it up. . . until Wolf pointed out the discrepancy in order to claim junk.

These documents reveal conclusively that Tumblety was a hermaphrodite (multiple testimonies) AND had a bitter hatred of seductive women (this is not just in the Norris testimony by the way, which corroborates Norris' veracity. Sorry Wolf.)

Keep in mind, Wolf has an agenda to discredit Norris (while his testimony has been corroborated), because it discredits Wolf's hallmark claims, like that Tumblety did not have a bitter hatred of women and had no interest in surgery. Don't think Norris' testimony is the only testimony that dismantles Wolfs outdated claims.

You might say I have the alternative agenda to prove Norris was not lying, which is why I had passed the all of the documents onto Non-Tumblety experts who have no dog in the fight. I will not divulge these people, but one thing is for sure, they agree that Norris' testimony is credible AND that Norris meant 1881 when he saw Tumblety's surgical knives as Tumblety stated all streetwalkers should be disemboweled. You see, I was convinced good ol' Wolf was going to attempt to discredit Norris' testimony, so I place them in the hands of others.

Sorry, Wolf. I will be holding you to your claims.

Sincerely,

Mike
__________________
The Ripper's Haunts (Sunbury Press)
http://www.michaelLhawley.com
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 11-17-2017, 08:47 AM
Steadmund Brand Steadmund Brand is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Buffalo New York area
Posts: 518
Default

Again, I am someone who has seen all the documents, and I was brought in from the beginning as an "ANTI" Tumblety guy.. more of a Tumblety was written off by me...and the discovery is staggering...does it say he IS the Ripper....no, does it show that he had the mentality and attitude and the means and beliefs to be Jack.. I think it does... as does everyone who has seen and read them...

Norris rambles, to be sure.. and I too believe he mixes up some facts with things he has read or heard, and also mixes up the time line of events.. but the fact that much of what he says is corroborated by others is telling

I am not saying anyone is lying or even withholding info...but the fact is, whatever Riordan did or did not have was NOT the same documents we had.. it is obvious...Personally I would like to know what it was he did have since these were all sealed since 1905 (per the archivist), sincerely, I am interested, as the research has fascinated me for the past year and a half, and I would like to see if there is something we missed.

Wolf, thank you for the respectful way in which you disagree with me...refreshing, too often these turn into petty attacks, keeping it respectful helps the cause so much more... and for me that cause is the truth, which is why, when I don't have definitive proof I state it is my opinion (educated opinion... not just wild stabs in the dark, no pun intended), and other times I let the proof speak for itself.

That being said, I do have to agree with Mike, you do seem to really want to discredit Norris outright..and I have no idea why or what purpose that serves.. question his statements, yes.. as we should, and did until we found examples of very similar statements by others... makes him seem a bit more credible eh? but to totally discredit him because you don't agree with what he says, sorry, that is no way to get to an answer.. and claiming that because others are corrupt in New Orleans therefore Norris is corrupt.. just doesn't fly... sometimes a cigar IS just a cigar (sorry inside joke about my Cigar smoking habit)

Steadmund
__________________
"The truth is what is, and what should be is a fantasy. A terrible, terrible lie that someone gave to the people long ago."- Lenny Bruce
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 11-17-2017, 09:11 AM
jmenges jmenges is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,242
Default

Wolf's suggestion that Norris mistakenly believed that the Whitechapel Murders occurred years before they actually did is a plausible one, given what has been made public. Which is apparently the key here- what's been made public. What I'm hearing is basically the same mantra of "we've seen everything and you haven't" over and over again which, as an argument, all but kills off any reasonable discussion, such as Wolf is attempting, on what has been revealed. There really is no point in questioning the pro-Tumblety, pro-Norris side until we've seen all of the documents ourselves? I'm for all of them being released unfiltered if that is at all possible. Maybe after Mike's next book is released. Or...its only a half day drive to St. Louis.

Frustratingly yours,

JM
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 11-17-2017, 09:19 AM
mklhawley mklhawley is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Greater Buffalo, New York
Posts: 1,859
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jmenges View Post
Wolf's suggestion that Norris mistakenly believed that the Whitechapel Murders occurred years before they actually did is a plausible one, given what has been made public. Which is apparently the key here- what's been made public. What I'm hearing is basically the same mantra of "we've seen everything and you haven't" over and over again which, as an argument, all but kills off any reasonable discussion, such as Wolf is attempting, on what has been revealed. There really is no point in questioning the pro-Tumblety, pro-Norris side until we've seen all of the documents ourselves? I'm for all of them being released unfiltered if that is at all possible. Maybe after Mike's next book is released. Or...its only a half day drive to St. Louis.

Frustratingly yours,

JM
Well, the publisher promised me a fall release, but editing hasn't even begun. My hands are tied. Other problems with Wolf's comments are not part of the documents, such as Tumblety not being a misogynist. This was already debunked, convincing the likes of Martin Fido and Paul Begg.

Mike
__________________
The Ripper's Haunts (Sunbury Press)
http://www.michaelLhawley.com
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 11-17-2017, 11:04 AM
rjpalmer rjpalmer is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 128
Default

Wolf has a major problem with his line of argument. Actually, he has several, but let me point out just one. And you don't need access to any other documentation to appreciate it.

In 1888 it was reported in the press that Tumilty (my name for him) could not be held for the Whitechapel Murders, but, instead, was to be charged with certain laws passed after the "Maiden Tribute" exposures.

That's it.

That is all that was ever reported about those specific charges, and all the focus instead shifted to his supposed connection to the WC murder case.

But note: the Maiden Tribute actually had to do with sex with an underaged girl.

After Stead's exposure in the Pall Mall Gazette the ensuing outrage eventually led to the Crimes Against the Persons Act, which famously, or infamously, dealt not only with the age of consent but also included statutes prohibiting all sexual acts other than sodomy between two consenting males.

Consent being the key word.

Anyone reading that 1888 blurb might assume, as did nearly all historians of the Whitechapel murder case, that Tumilty had been arrested for consensual sexual acts with rent boys.

Let that sink in, because--again--the relevant point is that the exact nature of these 1888 offenses were not known until the late 1990s.

People seem to be forgetting that point: the 1990s.

That is when the appropriate court calendar was rediscovered after the publication of Evans & Gainey's book.

And what turned up in those papers? O, nothing much, beyond the bald fact that Scotland Yard and the Treasury had four young men willing to swear under oath that Tumilty had sexually assaulted them with "FORCE OF ARMS."

Force of Arms: with the use of a weapon.

Doughty, Fisher, Brice, and Crowley.

So here, precisely, is where Wolf's argument starts to crumble.

Despite the fact that the relevant information was locked up in the bowels of the Old Bailey, here, in 1904, Norris is telling basically the same story as Doughty, Fisher, Brice, and Crowley.

He has been sexually assaulted by Tumilty with force of arms: specifically, a knife.

Yet, according to Wolf's theories, speculations, musings, what ever you wish to call them, Norris is a liar.

So how did Norris know?

Lucky guess?

Just a wild coincidence that 90 years later documents revealing that Tumilty had been accused of sexually assaulting four other men "with force of arms" in the 1880s would turn up to help confirm his story?

Or is it just possible that Norris is telling the truth and this was Tumilty's actual behavior in the 1880s?

A more reasonable conclusion is that Norris (as he admits) knew Tumilty over a several year period, and is simply bad with dates and is now garbling together three or four different events that happened at different times 15-20 years previously.

And it seems obvious to me that that is what is happening, because Norris refers to different heads of the NOLA police, sometimes referring to 1881 and at other times to 1891. It doesn't help that the lawyer is a lousy interviewer and his questions are all over the map. There is no reason to latch on to Wolf's sinister explanation.

It's always easy to call the victim of a sexual assault a liar. Norris, we are told, is lying. But there are four other young men in the UK stating that Tumilty sexually assaulted them, and I can name three others in the US that stated the same thing.

At what point do their stories become credible? A rather topical question here in the USA, I would think.

For make no mistake about it. Wolf dearly wants this to go away because it not only puts a knife in the hand of a police suspect in the Whitechapel Murder case, it strong suggests that he had a similar knife in London in the autumn of 1888.

Unless anyone wants to argue that the "force of arms" was a toothbrush.

Last edited by rjpalmer : 11-17-2017 at 11:14 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 02:38 PM.


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