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:
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Wickerman 1 minute ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Michael W Richards 3 minutes ago.
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - by rjpalmer 39 minutes ago.
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - by Kaz 4 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by c.d. 6 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Paddy 8 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - (12 posts)
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - (3 posts)
Shades of Whitechapel: Centenaries - whole and half - (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
  #61  
Old 11-17-2017, 11:16 AM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,438
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rjpalmer View Post
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 WC 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 indeed sexually assaulted four 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.
lol. great post. I would add that all of wolfs argument is based on that everyone else is corrupt and lying and tumblety was as pure as the driven snow. yeah right.

a snake oil salesmen wouldn't have a knife because its against his (false/lying) advertising claims. hahaha, that one made me laugh.
__________________
"Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"

-Edgar Allan Poe


"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

-Frederick G. Abberline

Last edited by Abby Normal : 11-17-2017 at 11:19 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 11-17-2017, 12:08 PM
GUT GUT is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: I come from a land Down Under
Posts: 7,173
Default

Nicely put.
__________________
G U T

There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 11-17-2017, 12:09 PM
GUT GUT is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: I come from a land Down Under
Posts: 7,173
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mklhawley View Post
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
Sorry to hear of the delay.
__________________
G U T

There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 11-17-2017, 12:17 PM
Steadmund Brand Steadmund Brand is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Buffalo New York area
Posts: 518
Default

See, and the way I read this statement

“Now, I read and new of the White Chapel business and did know it at the time."

to me it reads -when I read about the White Chapel killings, I knew that Tumblety said all should be disemboweled- now, the argument has been made that it DOESNT say that at all, but we are reading it without the benefit of word emphasis or punctuation, or follow up questions...just... the way I read it, and it makes sense as far as time line goes.. but I can't be sure...as the detractors cant be sure it doesn't say it.....sadly we will never know for sure---Ally and I had a great back and forth on the wording.. She saying it is impossible to read it the way I do...saying that it doesn't make sense .. I explaining exactly how and why I read it the way I do (and as do many people who have read it...as an experiment. After the arguments, I had several people I know and work with read it.. then explain to me what it meant, my way or her way.. and it was about a 50/50 split..which is again why I say.. this is what I think.. not what I know

As far as you claiming "you are now a true, bona fide Tumblety supporter" that is also not quite true... I now believe that it is POSSIBLE he COULD BE the killer, and I also now believe that HE WAS and should be taken seriously as a SUSPECT....but a supporter, Sorry, that I wouldn't say... have I spent time researching it, yes, and my opinion has changed as a result on some aspects...but I still insist we will never know for sure who Jack was

Isn't it better when we all play nice!!!!

Jonathan.. only 1/2 hour drive.... hmmm wait till next season and I'll meet you there for a Cardinals game!!!

Steadmund Brand
__________________
"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
  #65  
Old 11-17-2017, 01:10 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,017
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rjpalmer View Post
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.
A slight correction required here RP. The wording of the indictment was actually "with Force and Arms". That was standard, and quite ancient, wording for a charge of this type in the 19th century, the expression being derived from the Latin vi et armis. It could certainly mean that violence was involved (and Tumblety was charged with indecent assault as well as gross indecency) but also carried the less obviously violent meaning of "by unlawful means". It was not (and should not be) understood literally to mean that a weapon was used.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 11-17-2017, 02:34 PM
jmenges jmenges is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,242
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steadmund Brand View Post

Jonathan.. only 1/2 hour drive.... hmmm wait till next season and I'll meet you there for a Cardinals game!!!

Steadmund Brand
It'll be next Spring. Meet me in St. Louis.

JM
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 11-18-2017, 06:58 AM
Steadmund Brand Steadmund Brand is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Buffalo New York area
Posts: 518
Default

You start singing like Judy Garland and I am staying in Buffalo!!!!!!
__________________
"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
  #68  
Old 11-18-2017, 01:42 PM
DirectorDave DirectorDave is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Dunfermline, Scotland.
Posts: 227
Default

Is anyone else at the stage with Tumblety that if it was to turn out he wasn't a quack at all but a master alchemist who really had discovered the elixir of life, faked his own death and was currently living quietly somewhere in the bay area you wouldn't be completely broadsided by it?
__________________
My opinion is all I have to offer here,

Dave.

Smilies are canned laughter.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 11-20-2017, 07:07 AM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,438
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DirectorDave View Post
Is anyone else at the stage with Tumblety that if it was to turn out he wasn't a quack at all but a master alchemist who really had discovered the elixir of life, faked his own death and was currently living quietly somewhere in the bay area you wouldn't be completely broadsided by it?
LOL. I think this find is pretty big in its own right let alone a check mark for the Dr Ts supporters as a ripper suspect, for sure.
__________________
"Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"

-Edgar Allan Poe


"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

-Frederick G. Abberline
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 11-20-2017, 08:32 AM
Steadmund Brand Steadmund Brand is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Buffalo New York area
Posts: 518
Default

The find was pretty BIG...and Michael Sandknop did a great job of digging around to find it, and Michael Hawley did an amazing job at figuring out what he had..I am proud that I was able to contribute and help the two Michaels, It just saddens me that it has caused so much bickering.. finds like these are suppose to make us all happy instead we get

To me it doesn't matter if you think Tumblety was a suspect or not (I personally do...again, that is not to say he was The Ripper...but he was a suspect) but it does give us a bit more information about a truly fascinating character...and I don't think anyone would argue that he was indeed that.

I do laugh that I am labeled a Tumbletyite now... for MANY many years I had to argue that I wasn't strictly a Kosminskyite (which I believe Mike even refers to me as on the 1st Rippercast we were on together hahah)

Steadmund Brand/Brian
__________________
"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
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 01:19 PM.


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