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 Varqm 1 hour and 12 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Robert St Devil 1 hour and 19 minutes ago.
Kosminski, Aaron: My theory on Kosminski - by Paddy 1 hour and 20 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Abby Normal 2 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by rjpalmer 3 hours ago.
Doctors and Coroners: Baxter's influence on Ripper lore - by Michael W Richards 4 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Doctors and Coroners: Baxter's influence on Ripper lore - (14 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Kosminski/Kaminsky - please debunk - (9 posts)
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - (7 posts)
Shades of Whitechapel: Caught!? Long Island Serial Killer suspect - (6 posts)
Kosminski, Aaron: My theory on Kosminski - (3 posts)
Levy, Jacob: Jacob Levy - (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
  #101  
Old 11-22-2017, 08:26 AM
ChrisGeorge ChrisGeorge is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,518
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
. . . I know it was still a crime up to 1967 to indulge in consensual homosexual activity. That was my point. If there were no witnesses willing to testify, everyone involved would have walked unless they claimed one - Tumblety in this case - had forced his attentions on them sexually against their will. They were never going to admit to the crime of consensual activity, were they? I don't know if Tumblety committed these assaults against all four men against their will. Men, persons or boys? If they were all under thirteen it could not have been consensual, but if they were older it's at least possible. I don't even know if they were gay or straight. I was merely suggesting it seems to be a grey area.

Love,

Caz
X
It would be my assumption that the police then as later would have sought to monitor the sexual activity of a man such as Tumblety and catch him "in the act." I would think that was the case in London as also years later in Baltimore.

Chris
__________________
Christopher T. George
Organizer, RipperCon in Baltimore
http://blog.casebook.org/chrisgeorge
For info about RipperCon, in Baltimore, MD,
April 7-8, 2018, go to http://rippercon.com/
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 11-22-2017, 08:35 AM
mklhawley mklhawley is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Greater Buffalo, New York
Posts: 1,859
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post

3. I know it was still a crime up to 1967 to indulge in consensual homosexual activity. That was my point. If there were no witnesses willing to testify, everyone involved would have walked unless they claimed one - Tumblety in this case - had forced his attentions on them sexually against their will. They were never going to admit to the crime of consensual activity, were they? I don't know if Tumblety committed these assaults against all four men against their will. Men, persons or boys? If they were all under thirteen it could not have been consensual, but if they were older it's at least possible. I don't even know if they were gay or straight. I was merely suggesting it seems to be a grey area.
According to Oldbailey online, there were 81 cases of gross indecency between 1885 and 1895, and only 8 cases of gross indecency AND indecent assault. I'm sure none of these 73 cases were a case of admitting to the police, yet indecent assault was not involved.

Mike
__________________
The Ripper's Haunts (Sunbury Press)
http://www.michaelLhawley.com
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 11-22-2017, 09:18 AM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,425
Default

I guess the question is-how violent was T with the London cases.

In the Norris case-its pretty bad-rape basically, or attempted rape, certainly a physical assault and kidnapping.

the London cases appear to be anything from soliciting and or having gay sex with a minor (whether consensual or not) to something akin to what happened to Norris, correct?
__________________
"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
  #104  
Old 11-22-2017, 09:48 AM
mklhawley mklhawley is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Greater Buffalo, New York
Posts: 1,859
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abby Normal View Post
I guess the question is-how violent was T with the London cases.

In the Norris case-its pretty bad-rape basically, or attempted rape, certainly a physical assault and kidnapping.

the London cases appear to be anything from soliciting and or having gay sex with a minor (whether consensual or not) to something akin to what happened to Norris, correct?
His attorney, Frank Widner, was so threatened by Tumblety in his office in 1902 (just a year or less before he died), that he physically backed his chair up. This, though, was a rage issue. There is one bit of evidence. Littlechild made a comment about people like Tumblety being given to violence against their sex interest: It is very strange how those given to 'Contrary sexual instinct' and 'degenerates' are given to cruelty, even Wilde used to like to be punched about. When he states, "even Wilde," this seems to infer he was not connecting Wilde to his earlier cruelty comment but Tumblety.

Littlechild certainly read the dossier.

Sincerely,

Mike
__________________
The Ripper's Haunts (Sunbury Press)
http://www.michaelLhawley.com
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 11-22-2017, 09:51 AM
Steadmund Brand Steadmund Brand is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Buffalo New York area
Posts: 518
Default

Problem is we don't know... it could have been soliciting for sure... or.. as Mike suggested, these could have been men Tumblety had known and was just caught... or.. tried to take the "friendship" farther and they panicked, or reported him, sadly as Tumblety always had money on him, it was easy to skirt certain charges (as it is now with money), If I had to guess... and it is only a guess, Tumblety was caught trying to pick someone up, the police found the letters he had on him, busted him, but he was able to buy his way out (for the most part)... I also don't think it was a first offence as they had a file on him already.. he was a known "pervert".

The thing with Tumblety is, once he found someone, he would try to stay with them (in a casual sense) for as long as he could, as Mike has pointed out, not get close, but stay in contact (in touch would have been a bad pun) and have that kind of "relationship" .. but we know he also liked "cruising" in slums (in DC, in London, in St. Louis, in Rochester etc.)

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
  #106  
Old 11-22-2017, 11:22 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,017
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abby Normal View Post
If theyíre over thirteen it dosnt rule out force?
Even for an indecent assault charge against an adult this would not necessarily mean that force must have been used.

In a 1951 case in the Court of Criminal Appeal, it was said that for an act to amount to an indecent assault there must be "a threat or hostile act" and I believe the law was the same in 1888. That's quite a broad definition and means that there was no actual requirement for force to have been used.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 11-24-2017, 10:29 AM
Wolf Vanderlinden Wolf Vanderlinden is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 461
Default

Hi all.

Iím going to ask a question first because I donít want this to get lost in all the pointless chatter. Iím asking the question for two reasons: first, Iím interested in the answer, and second, I donít think it will be answered, and that will be an answer in itself. Here goes.

Who was Widner working for?

You have a Baltimore lawyer, not named in any of the newspaper reports which identified the law teams working for the family, and, in fact, none of the family lived in Baltimore. So, if he wasnít working for the family, who was he working for?

Thanks in advance (or not, as the case may be).

Wolf.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 11-24-2017, 12:23 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 Wolf Vanderlinden View Post
Hi all.

Iím going to ask a question first because I donít want this to get lost in all the pointless chatter. Iím asking the question for two reasons: first, Iím interested in the answer, and second, I donít think it will be answered, and that will be an answer in itself. Here goes.

Who was Widner working for?

You have a Baltimore lawyer, not named in any of the newspaper reports which identified the law teams working for the family, and, in fact, none of the family lived in Baltimore. So, if he wasnít working for the family, who was he working for?

Thanks in advance (or not, as the case may be).

Wolf.

The estate Id guess
__________________
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
  #109  
Old 11-25-2017, 07:44 PM
rjpalmer rjpalmer is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 125
Default

Hi Wolf. The will was challenged and went to probate. Yup; that's why these documents exist. We've know that for years. It hardly proves that Citizen K from Sugar Town, shook the sugar down.

All the best, RP. (with apologies to Bob Dylan).
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 11-27-2017, 01:23 PM
Wolf Vanderlinden Wolf Vanderlinden is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 461
Default

Hi GUT.

Quote:
The estate Id guess.
Nope. The estate was in the hands of the public administer for St. Louis, Garrard Strode, who had assumed executive control of Tumbletyís 1903 will. It was this will that the family was trying to overturn by proving Tumblety was insane and Norrisís deposition was part of this attempt.

Mike Hawley, in post #43, states that ďOf course you have to say Norris was paid off, but you also have to say his attorney Frank Widner was paid offÖ,Ē which would mean that Widner was working against the St. Louis will and, therefore, against the estate.

However, I think Hawley is wrong here. Why would Norris, who lived in New Orleans and made his deposition there (as far as I know) be represented by a Baltimore lawyer? Itís more likely, in my mind, that Norris was Widnerís witness rather than Widner was Norrisís lawyer.

I think I know what the answer is, but itís only supposition on my part, and Iíd like to know for sure. The clue is in the fact that Widner was a Baltimore lawyer. If Iím right, itís another strike against Norris as a credible witness. I think thatís why the question isnít being answered (and youíll notice that RJ Palmer felt the need to post gibberish rather than answer my question).

So, now we have two questions:
1 Ė Who was Widner working for?
2 Ė Why wonít anyone answer question 1?

Wolf.
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 11:52 AM.


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