Confused

[kindadull]

So I started browsing this site and taking interest in this [case] quite a while ago say about 2 months... After reading pretty much every thread and source that caught my eye in relevance to what I believe to be relevant to "Jack"

I've seen posts by extremely cynical people. I've seen some persistent and insistent people. I've seen posts by extremely crazy people (one actually took to outlining some initials in the body formation of a corpse in a photo of the MJK murder scene] and that's just... Well, sad.

Some people have even gone so far as to create evidence to further muddy the waters (see the Maybrick diary or this current shawl thing [the book is like... £17! like freaking really?])

And then people write and sell books discussing whether or not they are forgeries!

So... As confused as I am I think out of everything I have looked at, the killer for the (accepted canonical victims - assuming all canonical 5 are indeed by the same person) that It was likely or at least seems to be Tumbelty.

Some Pros for him being acceptable as a likely -

1) His hatred of women born from his previous experience.
2) His homosexuality .(The killer would never actually **** the prostitutes (c5) )
3) He fled and the canonical murders stopped.
4) He fled once again as the American media spread rumours about his supposed identity after quickly publicly dismissing them.
5) He likely had some significant anatomical knowledge.
6) He liked disappearing and cutting his losses as the ''Batty Street Lodger'' did.
7) He like using aliases and only shifty people have something to hide
8) He needed and collected and possessed uteri "from every class of women", which were also cleanly removed from the canonically accepted victims
9) London police travelled abroad to pursue him which is a pretty big deal. I don't know of any similar cases.
10) The Littlechild letter

Some questions I want to ask regarding Tumblety.

1) Why did he dress to fit in? It's a big deal. If he wanted to play the respectable and respected doctor... Then why?

Some arguments against Tumblety being JTR I have considered.

1) Why does a thief and a scammer with a huge ego (have you read his https://archive.org/details/narrativedrtumb00tumbgoog ?) suddenly snap one day and turn to murdering people in such a brutal way. If he wanted Uteri alone, he could just have not butchered post removal?
2) If he was that "hardcore" and had to do such damage due to this hatred... Then the idea that he can just turn off that part of himself is extremely impressive... and unlikely. This is one of the stronger problems that is confusing me so if I want to draw a line between Tumblety and JTR.

I will be adding more (in detail and quantity) to all 3 of these Pros/Questions/Cons I just... can't be bothered at the minute!

Please, I'd like to hear thoughts and also be made aware of what I might've missed. Have a nice morning, all.

[GUT]

So I started browsing this site and taking interest in this [case] quite a while ago say about 2 months... After reading pretty much every thread and source that caught my eye in relevance to what I believe to be relevant to "Jack"

I've seen posts by extremely cynical people. I've seen some persistent and insistent people. I've seen posts by extremely crazy people (one actually took to outlining some initials in the body formation of a corpse in a photo of the MJK murder scene] and that's just... Well, sad.

Some people have even gone so far as to create evidence to further muddy the waters (see the Maybrick diary or this current shawl thing [the book is like... £17! like freaking really?])

And then people write and sell books discussing whether or not they are forgeries!

So... As confused as I am I think out of everything I have looked at, the killer for the (accepted canonical victims - assuming all canonical 5 are indeed by the same person) that It was likely or at least seems to be Tumbelty.

Some Pros for him being acceptable as a likely -

1) His hatred of women born from his previous experience.
2) His homosexuality .(The killer would never actually **** the prostitutes (c5) )
3) He fled and the canonical murders stopped.
4) He fled once again as the American media spread rumours about his supposed identity after quickly publicly dismissing them.
5) He likely had some significant anatomical knowledge.
6) He liked disappearing and cutting his losses as the ''Batty Street Lodger'' did.
7) He like using aliases and only shifty people have something to hide
8) He needed and collected and possessed uteri "from every class of women", which were also cleanly removed from the canonically accepted victims
9) London police travelled abroad to pursue him which is a pretty big deal. I don't know of any similar cases.
10) The Littlechild letter

Some questions I want to ask regarding Tumblety.

1) Why did he dress to fit in? It's a big deal. If he wanted to play the respectable and respected doctor... Then why?

Some arguments against Tumblety being JTR I have considered.

1) Why does a thief and a scammer with a huge ego (have you read his https://archive.org/details/narrativedrtumb00tumbgoog ?) suddenly snap one day and turn to murdering people in such a brutal way. If he wanted Uteri alone, he could just have not butchered post removal?
2) If he was that "hardcore" and had to do such damage due to this hatred... Then the idea that he can just turn off that part of himself is extremely impressive... and unlikely. This is one of the stronger problems that is confusing me so if I want to draw a line between Tumblety and JTR.

I will be adding more (in detail and quantity) to all 3 of these Pros/Questions/Cons I just... can't be bothered at the minute!

Please, I'd like to hear thoughts and also be made aware of what I might've missed. Have a nice morning, all.

G'day kindadull

Welcome to casebook.

Yes some people can get heated/passionate. And if you think the initially were crazy what about poor old Vincent?

As to your pro Francis points:

2) His homosexuality .(The killer would never actually **** the prostitutes (c5) )

And some say Montie was a homosexual too and I'm sure that there were plenty of others about the place, but I don't really see how it helps. Kosmnski was said to be a chronic masturbator so maybe he couldn't either as he was worn out.

3) He fled and the canonical murders stopped.

And other people died and went to mad houses when the C5 stopped, of course that's IF the C5 is correct.

5) He likely had some significant anatomical knowledge.

Well first maybe, 2nd so did others.

6) He liked disappearing and cutting his losses as the ''Batty Street Lodger'' did.

How is this relevant unless the "Batty Street Lodger" can be shown to be Jack.

7) He like using aliases and only shifty people have something to hide

As did half the people in this case, the victims and Cross/Lechmere spring to mind as prime examples.

8) He needed and collected and possessed uteri "from every class of women", which were also cleanly removed from the canonically accepted victims

He may have collected uteri if you believe one report, even if he did we don't know that he harvested them as opposed to getting them from some other source.

9) London police travelled abroad to pursue him which is a pretty big deal. I don't know of any similar cases.

It appears that they may have.

10) The Littlechild letter

V's the Swanson Marginalia, Anderson and the Macnaghten Memorandum.

On the negative it is possible that he was in jail at the time of one murder.

He stopped for no apparent reason.


But keep thinkng.

[mklhawley]

Hi GUT,

He was not in jail at the time of the Kelly murder. Stewart Evans clearly pointed that out and Trevor's article was debunked.

Also remember that Assistant Commissioner Anderson solicited information on Ripper suspect Francis Tumblety from multiple US Chiefs of Police at the peak of the murders at the end of November. Why would the top brass get personally involved with an insignificant suspect?

The only reason why Scotland Yard later dismissed him was because he was in New York during the MacKenzie murder.

Hi Kindadull,

Tumblety was not known to be a thief, but definitely a narcissist. In January 1888, just prior to making the trip across to London, Tumblety told some passengers that because of his health condition, he didn't know if he would be alive the next day. His ill health issues began soon after the Civil War. There's more.

Sincerely,

Mike

[GUT]

G'day Mike

You will note I said "Possibly" in jail at the time, personally I would argue that he was out on bail at the time, and have done so on other threads.

I' aware of Anderson making inquiries, one even about his handwriting, presumably to compare with one of the letters.

I'd certainly place him in the top half dozen or so suspects.

[mklhawley]

G'day Mike

You will note I said "Possibly" in jail at the time, personally I would argue that he was out on bail at the time, and have done so on other threads.

I' aware of Anderson making inquiries, one even about his handwriting, presumably to compare with one of the letters.

I'd certainly place him in the top half dozen or so suspects.

Hi GUT,

I re-read my post and I certainly was abrupt. Apologies. It's a late one. I'll post more tomorrow.

Sincerely,

Mike

[GUT]

Hi GUT,

I re-read my post and I certainly was abrupt. Apologies. It's a late one. I'll post more tomorrow.

Sincerely,

Mike

No apologies necessary Mike

1. I'm thick skinned

2. I can be abrupt at times too.

[kindadull]

Hello GUT and thank you for your reply!

I have removed replies that are not exclusive purely because other suspects may also share in them. I do not believe them to be unique to Tumblety, and even though they are not it does not exclude him from suspicion or render them as invalid points when attempting to condemn Tumblety.

6) How is this relevant unless the "Batty Street Lodger" can be shown to be Jack.

This is something that needs addressing. I need to read more into it to draw a line that's at least somewhat believable.

8) He may have collected uteri if you believe one report, even if he did we don't know that he harvested them as opposed to getting them from some other source.

Well, I don't see any significant reason to not believe the report. It's not really something you'd lie about.

To answer the second part of your answer I am first going to assume the premises that
1) Tumblety had anatomical knowledge.
2) Tumblety was not very trusting.

You would need a certain "level" of butchery to cleanly remove the uterus from a woman. This definitely cuts down the amount of people who can do this as a job. Then, Tumblety would need to entrust this task to someone. Which, from what I can tell after reading his book(the kidnapping of Dr Tumblety - or another name similar to this) , he doesn't seem to LIKE being held at the mercy of other people and this includes and is likely not exclusive to the Law.

You may answer to this (why would he not harvest from already deceased women?)

I would suggest that he already had enough uteri from deceased women (12 or so jars filled with them) He wanted them from "every class" of woman, and this probably includes the freshly deceased.

9) It appears that they may have.

It doesn't just appear so, assuming the several newspaper articles and reports from the time are correct (as we kind of HAVE to to even discuss the case) they definitely crossed the ocean in search of him and this is something unique to the case concerning Tumblety. Why? I don't think they'd be so hot on the heels for anything less than a primary suspect and the Littlechild letter adds validity to this statement.

hmm, this should do for now I need to go and read up on that lodger

Thanks bud 4 your time!

[kindadull]

Hi Kindadull,

Tumblety was not known to be a thief, but definitely a narcissist. In January 1888, just prior to making the trip across to London, Tumblety told some passengers that because of his health condition, he didn't know if he would be alive the next day. His ill health issues began soon after the Civil War. There's more.

Sincerely,

Mike

Hi Mike!

Isn't it stealing to sell "medicines" you know don't work? It's just elaborate theft and that is why I refer to Tumblety as a thief.

I don't draw the same line between Narcissism and Hypochondria that you do. Can you help me understand how you made this connection?

Thanks bud 4 your time!

[mklhawley]

Hi Mike!

Isn't it stealing to sell "medicines" you know don't work? It's just elaborate theft and that is why I refer to Tumblety as a thief.

I don't draw the same line between Narcissism and Hypochondria that you do. Can you help me understand how you made this connection?

Thanks bud 4 your time!

Hi kindadull,

You caught me at a busy time, but this should explain.

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=4561

Regards,

Mike

[GUT]

G'day Kinda

To answer the second part of your answer I am first going to assume the premises that
1) Tumblety had anatomical knowledge.
2) Tumblety was not very trusting.

This is the sort of circular argument that gets people into trouble.

I'm going to assume he had anatomical knowoledge, thus
He harvested Uteri, Thus
He too Uteri from JtR Victims, Thus
JtR had anatomical knowledge, Thus
Tumblety is JtR

When we knock out the assumption the whole pack of cards falls down.

Also anatomical knowledge attaches to at least two other suspects, again I place him in the top half dozen or so suspects, but not there yet.

[RockySullivan]

So I started browsing this site and taking interest in this [case] quite a while ago say about 2 months...

Surely it takes a couple years longer than a few months to read thru all the worthwhile reading material on this site.

[GUT]

Surely it takes a couple years longer than a few months to read thru all the worthwhile reading material on this site.

Depends on how many hours a day and how quick you read.

[kindadull]

G'day Kinda



This is the sort of circular argument that gets people into trouble.

I'm going to assume he had anatomical knowoledge, thus
He harvested Uteri, Thus
He too Uteri from JtR Victims, Thus
JtR had anatomical knowledge, Thus
Tumblety is JtR

When we knock out the assumption the whole pack of cards falls down.

Also anatomical knowledge attaches to at least two other suspects, again I place him in the top half dozen or so suspects, but not there yet.

G'Day GUT!

I am using the term ASSUME because of the fact that there is no biography of Tumblety that is undeniably his where he says "Hey guys I'm not very trusting and I'm really good at knowing what's where and what that there does"

Those circular arguments are not strong in and of themselves, but they do account for something. They account for LOTS more if I can prove the premises that he was distrusting and and that he had anatomical knowledge (which I can, but I cut out writing those 2 longwinded things because they are commonly accepted facts about Tumblety)

I would not be posting here if I was sure of my rightness, I would instead be writing a book called "It's undeniably Tumblety! The sole, one and only truth behind the Whitechapel murders!" (or something along those lines)

I try to avoid drawing from thin air, your right when you say making a connection that has no previous indicator is madness and weak argumentative form.

Thanks 4 your time!

[kindadull]

Hi kindadull,

You caught me at a busy time, but this should explain.

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=4561

Regards,

Mike

Hi Mike

Thanks for this!

It does help me understand how you make him out to be an aggressive narcissist.

Though unfortunately for tying the line of relevance between that and him being JTR, there's a long way (and difference) between kicking a patient that's pissing you off down the stairs or striking someone in the face with your cane than brutally murdering women for ??? (personal gain?).

It makes Tumblety out to be more of a foolish, boyish character who doesn't like being challenged and can't control his patience or swallow his pride.

Thanks 4 Your time bud!

[kindadull]

Surely it takes a couple years longer than a few months to read thru all the worthwhile reading material on this site.

Hi RockySullivan!

It all depends [first] what I consider worthwhile, [secondly] what I consider relevant, [thirdly] what I may or may not miss, [fourthly] how well I remember what I've read before, [fifthly] how well I understand what was read.

Doing all that in 2 months would be fairly morbid, I suppose.

So I don't think I've really read [everything] there is to note here yet, so I will be here for a while.

Thanks for your time, bud!