Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Recommended Tumblety Books

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Recommended Tumblety Books

    Hi all,

    While perusing JtRForums, I noticed a Paul Sullivan asking Howard Brown where Tumblety was arrested (his November 7, 1888, arrest) and by whom. Howard Brown’s first response was recommending to Paul that he pick up Tim Riordan’s book, Prince of Quacks (2009). Howard writes, “My advice or suggestion is to pick up a copy of Timothy Riordan’s book, Prince of Quacks. He doesn’t have an urge to prove Tumblety guilty of anything other than being a quack and reckless individual when it came to risky behavior with men when it was really risky.”

    This is a strange response, since Tim Riordan does not go into Tumblety’s November 7, 1888, arrest. The only explanation to this is that just before Howard posted, someone else recommended to Paul my book, The Ripper’s Haunts. I actually agree with Howard that if one is interested in Francis Tumblety, Riordan’s book should be on the list, but I reject Howard Brown’s reason. His insinuation, as is Wolf’s, is my book is too biased to read on its own. Actually, all it does is present additional evidence demonstrating Stewart Evans was right all along, but I have no issues with readers having this preconceived notion before reading it. Howard, though, also claims Riordan’s book is not a suspect book, merely, a history book tracking Tumblety’s life.

    The evidence doesn’t fit this assessment of Riordan’s book. While Prince of Quacks is not a book arguing that Francis Tumblety was a significant Whitechapel murder suspect, it is a book arguing just the opposite, that Tumblety was not a significant suspect. Although Riordan himself claims his book is not a suspect book about Tumblety, it is actually an anti-Tumblety suspect book. Note how Riordan wholeheartedly rejects the conclusions made by Evans and Gainey and even belittles Evans’ research,


    “Before we continue with the story of his life, we have to deal with the third aspect of Tumblety’s association with the Whitechapel murders – his modern fame. Beginning in 1993, a whole new perspective on Dr. Tumblety was developed as a result of the research of Stewart Evans. With his discovery of the Littlechild letter and his publications (written with Paul Gainey), Evans gave Tumblety a kind of notoriety that makes the contemporary press coverage seem meager. The idea of an “unknown suspect” in the most studied murder investigation in history was the kind of news guaranteed to spur public interest. The Littlechild Letter was a legitimate discovery that added a significant new dimension to the study of the Whitechapel murders. However, the subsequent publications by Evans and Gainey suffer from an all too common problem with books in this field. They chose to advocate Tumblety’s guilt rather than objectively assess the evidence. This allows them to pick only those facts that support their case while denying the validity of any facts that do not fit their preconceived idea…”


    So, does Riordan “objectively assess the evidence”? Did he have any preconceived ideas before he researched and wrote The Prince of Quacks? Actually, there is evidence that Riordan did indeed have preconceived ideas before researching and writing his book; a book he published in 2009. Note just a few of his anti-Tumblety statements on Casebook four years earlier in February 2005,


    “Dunham was a pathological liar yet it is the acceptance of his testimony that has been the basis for much of the speculation on Tumblety being the Ripper.”
    “I find Doctor Tumblety to be an interesting character and hope to be doing much more research on him in the future.”
    “…In England, Tumblety was one of hundreds of suspects in the case, and not a very good one apparently.”



    Riordan clearly had preconceived anti-Tumblety views, but did this affect his own research? Note his comment about Evans’ research specific to cherry picking the facts, “This allows them to pick only those facts that support their case while denying the validity of any facts that do not fit their preconceived idea…” Is there any evidence that Riordan violated his own research rule of cherry picking evidence in order to convince the reader of his argument?

    One of Riordan’s claims is that New York City lawyer and Civil War reptile journalist Charles A. Dunham never met Francis Tumblety in 1861. In an interview with the New York World on December 1, 1888, Dunham claimed to have met Tumblety in Washington DC just after the First Battle of Bull Run and, among other damning accounts, stated he was witness to Tumblety’s collection of uterus specimens, the very organ Jack the Ripper harvested from two of his victims. Riordan claims Dunham lied all throughout the interview and could not even have met Tumblety (I’ve since shown clear evidence to the contrary). He writes in Prince of Quacks on page 91,


    “…Thus Dunham could not have met Tumblety then. Dunham’s biographer reports that he was in Washington for brief periods in July, August and November 1861. Beyond that, his whereabouts are unknown.”


    Note what Dunham’s biographer, Carman Cumming, actually reported, “He is known to have visited the capital at least three times in 1861 – in July, August, and November- and may have been there more often.”

    If Riordan added the last section of Cumming’s comment that Dunham “may have been in DC more often in 1861”, this would have lessened the impact of his argument that the two never met. Is this not cherry picking?

    The above example in not unique, but the bigger problem with Riordan’s book is that it is now out of date. There has been a volume of new evidence collected that completely contradicts his anti-Tumblety arguments. Case in point; Riordan hinges nearly his entire anti-Tumblety arguments upon the unreliability of Charles A. Dunham and the December 1, 1888, New York World interview. Riordan claims that pro-Tumblety arguments are based upon the interview, yet the entire interview is a bunch of Dunham lies, and he goes so far as to claim Chief Inspector Littlechild read Dunham’s article and was convinced of Tumblety’s guilt,


    “A good example of this is the interview given by Col C. A. Dunham in 1888. The information in this article is prominently repeated in every book or article about Tumblety. It has become the basis of what people think about Tumblety. There is some evidence that Inspector Littlechild knew of this report and it helped convince him of Tumblety’s guilt.”


    Actually, most pro-Tumblety arguments are not based upon the Dunham interview, but let’s look at just a few of Riordan’s Dunham arguments. He argues that Tumblety’s reputation as an extreme woman hater came solely from the December 1, 1888, Dunham interview,


    “None of the early reports in November 1888 mention anything about Tumblety’s hatred of women… After Dunham’s story was published, Tumblety’s “well-known hatred of women” becomes a standard part of his description. Like everything else in Dunham’s story, this aspect seems exaggerated in order to put Tumblety in the worst light and to bolster Dunham’s credibility…”


    Well, here are three which contradict Riordan’s claim:

    1 - “He was known as a thorough woman-hater and as a man who never associated with or mixed with women of any kind.” (Chi. Daily Inter Ocean, William Pinkerton, November 19, 1888)
    2 - “…and in New York his behavior was that of a man who had no liking for women.” (SF Chief of Police Patrick Crowley, San Francisco Examiner, November 23, 1888)
    3 - “Did you ever hear he had an aversion to women?” Mr. Carr was asked. “I heard stories about that,” he replied, “and the general impression among those who knew him about his habits was that he avoided women.” (NY World, November 26, 1888)


    Dunham’s reputation for extreme misogyny clearly predates the Dunham interview. Even in 1875 we see evidence of Tumblety’s misogyny, or hatred of women; 13 years before Dunham’s interview. Notice the reporter, not knowing of Tumblety’s reputation, singled out women,

    There comes to us a tale of a decent woman from the Isle of Man who sought his advice respecting a bad leg. He told her it was due to the immorality of her parents, but would cure it for 3 pounds. This she declined, whereon he [Tumblety] ordered her to get out legs and all or else he would kick her out! Other women young and unmarried, have fled in alarm from his premises, and say his language and conduct suggested danger. (Liverpool Leader, January 9, 1875)


    Charles A. Dunham claimed to a New York World reporter on December 1, 1888, that he witnessed Tumblety giving an illustrated medical lecture to him and fellow officers in 1861. Riordan argues that Dunham lied and Tumblety did not have an anatomical museum,


    “As to his possession of “the matrices of every class of women,” again we only have Dunham’s word for it. There is a report that in Washington, Tumblety had a model of the circulatory system. This is a far cry from the anatomical museum described by Dunham. If such specimens existed, it was the only time in his entire career that anyone ever mentioned them. Soon thereafter, in Philadelphia, the press reported that there was nothing medical in nature in his office.”


    In The Ripper’s Haunts, I present evidence that Tumblety had an interest in the internal anatomy just months before his illustrated medical lecture in DC. The following August 31, 1861, Vanity Fair article has Francis Tumblety in the possession of anatomical images,

    . . . But if one quack is thus happily thwarted in his attempts to outrage decency and insult the public, why should another be quietly suffered to hang out his disgusting banners in our very midst? In a central part of Broadway―we forget the exact Spot, there are so many there to confuse the eye―the passers by are daily outraged by the exhibition of certain anatomical pictures, which look as if they might once have formed part of the collection of a lunatic confined in a leper hospital. . . . He is generally accompanied by a large greyhound―a well-bred animal, but wearing a dejected look, as if ashamed of the company into which it has fallen. The man’s name is TUMBLETY . . .

    We know Tumblety’s office was designed for herbal treatments, so why did he have these pictures? Is it a coincidence that in just a few months he’s giving an illustrated lecture to General McClellan’s officers an illustrated medical lecture, the same kind of lecture surgeons gave in order to demonstrate their credibility? Is it a coincidence that Tumblety himself stated he offered his ‘surgical’ expertise to the General just months later?

    Recall, Riordan commented that after DC he visited Philadelphia, and it was reported that he had nothing ‘medical’. Riordan fails to mention this Philadelphia visit was two full years later, in 1863. Between 1861 and 1863, Tumblety made numerous excursions, and even went back to New York City. Of significance, though, Tumblety was quickly run out of Philadelphia in July 1863 and made his way to Buffalo, New York. Of all things, Tumblety gave medical lectures!

    Buffalo Courier, May 31, 1914
    One particular week that will ever remain notable in local history was in July, 1863. …In fact quite an intimacy sprang up between him [John Wilkes Booth] and a Dr. Tumblety – or Tumulty. He drove around selling cure-alls for everything, giving lectures with Thespian emphasis. He frequently located himself on the Terrace, where he would draw big crowds by distributing bags of flour.



    In Prince of Quacks, Riordan leads the reader to believe the hidden agenda behind Dunham’s December 1, 1888, interview was for two reasons. He first suggests Dunham had a long-held vindictiveness agenda, but he then curiously opts for the money-making agenda. To reinforce the 1888 money-making scheme, Riordan then insinuates Dunham may have authored another Tumblety article, “Colonel James Sothern”,


    “…Why would Dunham, in 1888, go to lengths he did to make Tumblety appear so guilty? Several reasons suggest themselves. Dunham was known to be vindictive and hold grudges for a long time… Probably the most pertinent reason was that Dunham saw a way to make money off these sensational stories. This may not be the only Tumblety story he penned in 1888. Another article quotes “Colonel James L. Sothern,” a well-known lawyer of Chicago, who met Tumblety in a number of places over the years. This “well-known” lawyer does not appear to be listed in any Chicago census, city directory or newspaper. The story had the smell of Dunham all over it…” (pp. 93-94)

    Here’s the New York World article showing the interview of Sothern,

    The World, Nov 26, 1888
    "I have known Dr. Twomblety by sight for thirty years," said William H Carr, the veteran clerk of the Fifth Avenue Hotel, last night…” ... ‘Col. James L. Sothern, of Chicago, the well known lawyer, was talking to a group of friends in the Hoffman House when some one mentioned Twomblety's name. "I have met that fellow all over America and Europe…" … James Pryor, the detective of the Fifth Avenue Hotel, appeared to know more of the mysterious Twomblety than any one else.


    If Riordan is correct, Dunham planned the Tumblety money-making scheme on or before November 25, 1888, six days BEFORE his own December 1 interview in which he claimed to have seen Tumblety’s uterus collection. Riordan adding the Sothern story was clearly an attempt to convince the reader of Dunham’s devious premeditated money-making intentions.

    Well, I found a ‘Sothern’ taking residence in the Hoffman House in November 1888. The Shakespearian actor and notorious practical jokester Edward H. Sothern was playing in New York City at the Lyceum Theatre (the play Sweet Lavender) in November 1888. He and other actors used to congregate at the Hoffman House cafe, since it was only two blocks away from the theater. The following article not only shows he stayed at the Hoffman House, but that he was a practical jokester,

    The New York Times, April 14, 1887, ONE OF RAYMOND’S TRAITS –HIS [Sothern] FRIENDS TALKING OF HIS PRACTICAL JOKES. …At the Gilsey, the Hoffman, the Union-Square, the Morton, and all other places where the profession are wont to congregate, there has been constantly repeated over the lemonades and the punches, in the little …

    Even though this shows the reporter was duped by Sothern, this is a far cry from a Charles Dunham lie.

    Honestly, I could go on, even with his mistakes about Tumblety’s valuables in his possession in 1903 at the time of his death, but my point is not to diminish the valuable input Riordan has made in retracing the history of Francis Tumblety. My point is if one is going to buy Riordan’s book, it should be supplemented with additional, up-to-date, material.

    Sincerely,
    Mike
    Last edited by mklhawley; 06-15-2016, 12:28 PM.
    The Ripper's Haunts/JtR Suspect Dr. Francis Tumblety (Sunbury Press)
    http://www.michaelLhawley.com

  • #2
    Just received a Tumblety book in the mail.

    now to find time to read it.
    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.

    Comment


    • #3
      Well said Mike....

      I have read both Tim Riordan’s book, Prince of Quacks and your The Ripper's Haunts and I couldn't agree more...

      I, like you, will not "bash" Mr. Riordan or his book... it is excellent, and a good read, but the research you did is amazing....it corrects MANY mistakes in the Prince of Quacks... Honest mistakes... I am not implying that Tim did anything wrong!!, and your research added so very much, you were able to fill in quite a few gaps....

      Sadly, in a field such as this, there are those who do not like to be proven wrong, even if would help them in further research....

      I would strongly suggest that Howard Brown read your book (as it appears he did not, judging by his answer, but I could be wrong), and anyone interested in Tumblety should read it....if they want to criticize it after, or ask questions, then they should... but reading it, with an open mind should be first and foremost on anyone's list if they want to take issue with the facts.
      Again, I applaud you on a fantastically researched book....and I look forward to more from you in the future.

      P.S.... I bet there are a ton of folks who will freak out when they hear my theory on the "Tumblety Photo"....let's keep that under our hats (or berets in my case) for now.....

      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

      Comment


      • #4
        Fascinating character Dr. T. I really try to read both books.

        General McClellan's father, Dr. George McClellan, founded the Jefferson Medical College in Philadelphia back in the 1820s, and it remained a leading medical school in the U.S. for much of the 19th Century. No doubt that would have given "Little Mac" some background in medicine, and a willingness to hear Dr. T's lecture. But I wonder if he would have slowly questioned Dr. T's credentials. McClellan may have had a case of the "slows" regarding following Confederate armies, but he wasn't a moron - so I can wonder how long Dr. T could have relied on McClellan's apparent support.

        Mike's wonderful research linking that eminent "Chicago lawyer" "James H. Southern" with the 19th Century comic actor Edward H. Southern is a welcome addition to the fitting of Dr. T into his times. Southern really was brilliant concerning practical joking - once turning the lobby of a hotel he was in into a camp of anxious and worried fellow roomers gazing at each other and wondering which group of mad people were going to strike first. Oddly enough E.H. has a "Booth" link (not by stage exactly) to Dr. T: the character of "Lord Dundreary" in "Our American Cousin" (which is the only other reason aside from the sad connection to Abraham Lincoln, or the career of Laura Keene, it's star, to remember the play) was first played - and expanded successfully, but Southern. He took the vague, stage English, "'M' lord" character and made him the ultimate 19th Century version of one of P.G. Wodehouse's aristocratic twits. Wearing a preposterously long pair of "burnsides/sideburns/side whiskers", Southern would wonder throughout the play as a welcome phantom whose confusions actually relieved the burdens of the plot (involving scheming relatives trying to get the better of Asa Trenchard, whom they think is the heir to the fortune they covet). He kept adding bits of business about his equally dim-witted brother, reading letters the brother wrote to him. It must have been really funny. In fact, the hair whiskers soon became a male fashion statement called "dundrearies" after the way Southern wore them and his character), and Southern was such a success, he would eventually be able to have plays created about the further adventures of Dundreary.

        Two further points:

        1) The headline mentioning "One of Raymond's Traits", is probably referring to another of the great 19th Century comic actor stars, Henry T. Raymond, best recalled today for being a favorite star of Abraham Lincoln, and for his performance as "Col. Mulberry Sellers" in the stage version of "The Gilded Age" by Mark Twain and Charles Dudley Warner.

        2) Hoffman House Bar is interesting. You may recall the name in reference to a series of mixed drink cocktales that were on sale for many years - they originated (supposedly) at the New York City hotel/restaurant/bar. For the criminally interested, until his death in 1900, the House was owned and operated by Edward S. Stokes, the former partner of James Fisk, the Wall Street tycoon and partner of Jay Gould in the "Erie Wars" against Commodore Vanderbilt, and in the notorious "Gold Corner" of 1869. Stokes and Fisk were rivals over Josie Mansfield, Fisk's mistress, and Fisk retaliated financially on Stokes. Stokes shot and killed Fisk in January 1872, and after two trials served a six year term (he somehow proved Fisk had pulled out a gun first), and after his sentence ended he bought the Hoffman House - he also was the resident greeter of the elite in business, politics, and the stage.

        Jeff

        Comment


        • #5
          Hi Mike.

          Just a few corrections on one of your points.

          Well, I found a ‘Sothern’ taking residence in the Hoffman House in November 1888. The Shakespearian actor and notorious practical jokester Edward H. Sothern was playing in New York City at the Lyceum Theatre (the play Sweet Lavender) in November 1888.
          Could you please show us where you found the information that E.H. Southern was staying at the Hoffman House in November, 1888?

          You state that “Edward H. Sothern was playing in New York City at the Lyceum Theatre (the play Sweet Lavender) in November 1888.” This is wrong.

          Sothern wasn’t in ‘Sweet Lavender,’ in New York, in November of 1888 (the play opened on the 13th of that month). He was, instead, in Boston, at the Hollis Theatre, appearing in ‘Lord Chumley’ which opened on Monday, 12 November, and closed on the night of Saturday 24 November, 1888. Sothern then opened ‘Lord Chumley’ at Col. Sinn’s Park Theatre, Brooklyn, on Monday, 26 November, 1888. Brooklyn is not “two blocks away” from the Hoffman House.

          …Shakespearian actor and notorious practical jokester Edward H. Sothern…;
          The following article not only shows he stayed at the Hoffman House, but that he was a practical jokester, The New York Times, April 14, 1887, ONE OF RAYMOND’S TRAITS –HIS [Sothern] FRIENDS TALKING OF HIS PRACTICAL JOKES. …At the Gilsey, the Hoffman, the Union-Square, the Morton, and all other places where the profession are wont to congregate, there has been constantly repeated over the lemonades and the punches, in the little …
          The headline of the 14 April, 1887, New York Times article has nothing to do with E.H. Sothern, even though you have inserted Sothern’s name into it to make it appear that it does. “ONE OF RAYMOND’S TRAITS – HIS [Raymond’s not E.H. Sothern’s] FRIENDS TALKING OF HIS [Raymond’s not E.H. Sothern’s] PRACTICAL JOKES.” The Raymond in question being John T. Raymond, who had just died.

          There is no evidence that E.H. Sothern was a notorious practical joker, or any kind of joker for that matter, mentioned in this article. The article does talk about a practical joke Raymond played on E.H. Sothern’s father, actor E.A. Sothern, told by a “Billy Florence” in which Sothern senior was given a Chinese meal which, unbeknownst to him, was actually dog. Florence, who states “I was always a friend of Sothern’s,” (senior) then tells how HE got even with Raymond on Sothern’s (senior) behalf by getting a black hotel’s cook to feed Raymond Raccoon stew and then leading him to believe it was a baby. Florence concludes with “Sothern [senior] was even.” The New York Tribune, 25 November, 1888, does states that “the elder Sothern” was a practical joker, however, but he died in January of 1881.

          So E.H. Sothern does not appear to have been anywhere near the Hoffman House when the New York World article appeared and your contention that he was a “notorious practical joker,” and so fooled the World’s obviously gullible reporter, seem based on mixing up E.H. with his father E.A. (much as Mayerling has also done) I’m afraid. The matter still stands that no such person as “Col. James L. Sothern, of Chicago, the well known lawyer,” exists anywhere.

          Wolf.

          Comment


          • #6
            Thanks Wolf, you corrected me as well. The actor Lincoln liked who played "Colonel Mulberry Sellers" was John T. Raymond, not Henry T. Raymond. Henry Raymond (d. 1869) was the editor of the New York Times in the period of the 1850s to 1860s, and a strong supporter of Lincoln and the Union.

            Jeff

            Comment


            • #7
              Wolf! How's it going! Long time no hear.

              Interesting that the Los Angeles Daily Herald dated November 18, 1888, states, "Edward Sothern, who is at present on the top wave of success with Lord Chumley at the Lyceum..."

              And in the Indianapolis Journal, Dec 9, 1888, "One of the following excellent attaractions to be seen here is E. H. Sothern in "Lord Chumley," which has been running for nearly a year at the Lyceum Theater, New York. The original company will appear here with Mr. Sothern. The piece is the best attraction New York has had for years."


              He indeed stayed at the Hoffman House. Sorry Wolf.

              Mike
              Last edited by mklhawley; 06-16-2016, 11:51 AM.
              The Ripper's Haunts/JtR Suspect Dr. Francis Tumblety (Sunbury Press)
              http://www.michaelLhawley.com

              Comment


              • #8
                Hi All,

                Sort it out amongst yourselves, boys.

                Indianapolis Journal, 11th November 1888—

                Click image for larger version

Name:	INDIANAPOLIS JOURNAL 11 NOV 1888 SOTHERN.JPG
Views:	1
Size:	26.7 KB
ID:	666691

                Regards,

                Simon
                Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Wolf is correct that Sothern was not in Boston when the November 26 "Colonel Sothern" interview occurred at the Hoffman House. He was indeed playing just on the other side of the Brooklyn Bridge, and since Sothern's comedy team spent the whole year playing at the Lyceum Theatre, I'm sure they stayed at their usual haunt, or at least had their usual lunch at the Hoffman House.

                  Mike
                  The Ripper's Haunts/JtR Suspect Dr. Francis Tumblety (Sunbury Press)
                  http://www.michaelLhawley.com

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Here's some more from my material...

                    The Hoffman House was the place New York actors socialized

                    In Theater, Jun 1889, it states,

                    “But, as I have said, in New York the majority of actors are known familiarly everywhere. Go with me into the Hoffman House bar or into the leading cafes at any time during the day and we can find a hundred.”


                    In Actors and American Culture, 1880 – 1920 (McArthur) it states,

                    “Gregarious by nature, actors needed a little excuse for socializing. Friends would stop and chat, new acquaintances would be made. The Hoffman House Bar and Broadway Saloon offered congenial settings for swapping stories of recent times.”


                    In The Epic of New York City (Ellis) it states,

                    “Five new plays were scheduled to open on Monday evening, but none did. Only four theaters held their usual shows. Henry Irving and Ellen Terry, the stars of Faust, dined leisurely in the Hoffman House, a famous hotel on Broadway between twenty-fourth and Twenty-fifth streets. The Hoffman House bar was the most famous in town because of Bouguereau’s scandalous painting of a nude nymph surrounded by leering satyrs. Irving and Miss terry thought that their performance at the Star Theatre had been cancelled."


                    In BUCHANAN’S THEATRICAL VENTURES IN AMERICA 1884-1885, we see both Sinn’s theater and the Hoffman House as part of the theatrical world in New York:

                    In 1884 Robert Buchanan and Harriett Jay went to America… At the conclusion of its first run it was taken up by Colonel Sinn, of Brooklyn… Since his [Buchanan] arrival in this country, about three weeks ago, he has been spending his time alternately at the Hoffman House, in this city, and the Pavilion Hotel…



                    Recall also Wolf, you believe the November 26 "Colonel Sothern" article was a Charles Dunham scam, even though his interview was four days later. So, are you saying Dunham somehow duped the reporter at the Hoffman House? Tell me more?

                    Mike
                    The Ripper's Haunts/JtR Suspect Dr. Francis Tumblety (Sunbury Press)
                    http://www.michaelLhawley.com

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Oh yes, here’s something else in my file, showing Sothern enjoying some song at the Hoffman House,

                      The Sun, June 12, 1888
                      An audience of ladies thronged the Hoffman House ballroom yesterday afternoon to hear Mlle. De Nogueiras, the daughter of the late Portuguese Minister, sing… Among those present were the Turkish Minister, the Italian Minister… Mr. E. H. Sothern


                      Mike
                      The Ripper's Haunts/JtR Suspect Dr. Francis Tumblety (Sunbury Press)
                      http://www.michaelLhawley.com

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X