Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Graphologist Claims Tumblety wrote the Lusk Letter

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by Cap'n Jack View Post
    Christine
    I'd put my money on a drunken middle class clerk who was high on mercury poisoning.
    He should have used Tumblety's pimple banisher.

    Cap'n Jack, Absolutely I believe he was drunk on something. The darn thing reeks drunk/stoned vibes.
    "What our ancestors would really be thinking, if they were alive today, is: "Why is it so dark in here?"" From Pyramids by Sir Terry Pratchett, a British National Treasure.

    __________________________________

    Comment


    • #32
      Christine, Thanks for the link and the info. I'm going to check this out. I appreciate your help and your input on the letter.

      Celesta
      "What our ancestors would really be thinking, if they were alive today, is: "Why is it so dark in here?"" From Pyramids by Sir Terry Pratchett, a British National Treasure.

      __________________________________

      Comment


      • #33
        it should be pointed out that graphology is not an exact science but educated opinion at best, and this is more than likely just one more person who wants to give some extra 'evidence' to promote a personal theory

        and i should add when i say educated opinion i mean comparing samples, not building a psychological profile based on what is nothing more than practicing hand-eye coordination (thats all writing is).

        i have to question whether the latter has ever really been taken seriously in a court case.
        Last edited by joelhall; 06-27-2008, 12:35 AM. Reason: mistake
        if mickey's a mouse, and pluto's a dog, whats goofy?

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by joelhall View Post
          it should be pointed out that graphology is not an exact science but educated opinion at best
          That's being overly generous. It's not any kind of science at all.

          Dan Norder
          Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
          Web site: www.RipperNotes.com - Email: dannorder@gmail.com

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Christine View Post
            Hello, I don't consider myself much of a Ripperologist, but I do enjoy reading the casebook from time to time. I came across this article, and naturally wanted to know what casebook thought of it, and I was surprised that I couldn't find anything, either here or on the old forum.

            Essentially what we have here is a book coming out in June that will claim that Tumblety wrote the Lusk letter, based on handwriting analysis. In general this sort of analysis is considered valid, and is admissible as evidence in court.

            From there she jumps to the conclusion that Tumblety was Jack, which is questionable, but it certainly would be interesting enough if Tumblety could be proved to have written the letter.

            She also makes some very questionable graphology claims, such as the claim that the author of the Lusk letter was out of control sexually, based on his large loops on the lower parts of letters like 'y' and 'g'. I was a little surprised to see this. The University of Michigan is a highly respected institution, and doesn't usually go in for this sort of pseudoscience.

            I do hope you find the link interesting, and look forward to hearing opinions.
            I only did a bit of amatuer handwriting analysis and would have to look it all up all over again, looking at the Lusk letter or ' from Hell ' letter from an amatuer's look at it, i don't think that the looped y's and g's are an alarm of pent up sexuality, but i guess a lot of Victorian's would have pent up sexuality in any case due to the religious hampering side, Victorians also had a different style of writing and it was repetitive and certain types of writing would be handed down and gotten used to from those that taught it, all connected with pain if you didn't do the right thing, in the case of the catholics it was if you used your left hand you'd get a damn good birching, as in the Lord is on the right hand side of God and Satan/Devil was on the left hand side of God, heck they even teach you how to quickly move your hand from the left side over to the right side with crossing yourself, even in this day and age ( with making the sign of the cross on yourself that it). Elizabeth the First's signature has a flow of several loops, you know the Virgin Queen. So if in comparision to that then the Lusk letter and it's loops are really not that bad in the case of pent-up sexuality. In any case has anyone seen Tumbelty's handwriting to have any comparision at all? Just thought i'd give my pennies worth.

            Comment


            • #36
              Hi all,

              It is worth inserting here that Tumblety's handwriting was requested from some San Francisco financial parties by Scotland Yard around the time of the murders. Whether this was to compare his against the letters received that they felt were credible...ie..on suspicion of writing some, or for the lewdness charges pending against him from the early Fall, for his involvement in the alleged transfer and manipulation of large sums of what was believed to be "Fenian" money, or for his arrest on suspicion for the murders.....I dont know.

              He was accused of a poisoning in Canada before these murders....and fled. Then held for these crimes, and fled again,.. that time as Mr Frank Townsend.

              But what a character...on both humorous and ominous notes.

              Cheers all.

              Comment


              • #37
                Tumbelty was homosexual, he used to sell homosexual pornographic magazines, a chance to meet potential lovers as well as make a buck in the making, his choice of slave that he had was a male, and males were more expensive than the females, it suited him just fine for both menial and household jobs as well as the sex, so Tumbelty wouldn't have had pent-up sexuality in any case, he was a bit of a con-man, so it was easy for his character to use the double standard, as many Victorian's also did in thier households as well, Victorian members of parliment wanted to see to it that the poorer classes still continued prostitution, so that the middle classes and others could use the young women for thier sons as well as themselves, to sow thier oats and have a little stress release. I might add with British Rape laws and the sexist view, the successfulness of women seeking court cases for rape are somewhat wittled down a lot, so that the favour is stacked with protecting the minority ( males) and failing to protect the majority ( females), in this sense women as property still prevails with male dominance and male view imposed on female sexuality. Even though some changes have been made, it is still a lot to be desired and poverty still squirms around including that of education, as with the sexes women are always the weaker sex in general in comparison to the male, however protection of the male takes precidence over the female. And we still have prostitution in Britain today.
                Last edited by Shelley; 02-07-2009, 11:24 PM.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Dan Norder View Post
                  That's being overly generous. It's not any kind of science at all.
                  Dan, nothing is exact thats why we have ' Research ' evolvement is still in the making, and if any choose to believe in evolution, research is always a much needed section in every sense.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Shelley View Post
                    Tumbelty was homosexual, he used to sell homosexual pornographic magazines, a chance to meet potential lovers as well as make a buck in the making, his choice of slave that he had was a male, and males were more expensive than the females, it suited him just fine for both menial and household jobs as well as the sex, so Tumbelty wouldn't have had pent-up sexuality in any case, he was a bit of a con-man, so it was easy for his character to use the double standard, as many Victorian's also did in thier households as well, Victorian members of parliment wanted to see to it that the poorer classes still continued prostitution, so that the middle classes and others could use the young women for thier sons as well as themselves, to sow thier oats and have a little stress release.
                    No, he didn't sell homosexual pornographic magazines.

                    And quite a sentence you wrote there.

                    JM

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by jmenges View Post
                      No, he didn't sell homosexual pornographic magazines.

                      And quite a sentence you wrote there.

                      JM
                      I came across information that he did sell pornographic material, so where was your information that Tumbelty didn't sell pornographic material?

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Actually Shelley if you are making a claim that someone did something, it is incumbent upon you to provide the proof, not the person claiming they didn't.

                        That would be like me saying Shelley smokes crack, and then when you say you don't me stating "where's your proof you don't?".

                        If you claim Tumblety sold porno, you need to present your evidence, not ask someone else to prove he didn't.

                        But I'll point you to this anyway...

                        http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.p...0&postcount=20

                        Let all Oz be agreed;
                        I'm Wicked through and through.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Ally,
                          I have no idea where you get your assumptions from, but you do live up to your name thats for sure. My only meaning was that i came across such information and in turn was only asking someone else until you butted in! Where they may have got any information themselves, i thought the boards were about opinons, sharing information and all of us learning at the same time. Besides, if you were to say i'd smoked crack i could understand your nature and the name you've uearned for yourself, i've got to be truthful and say i'm not your type of person, i could say a lot more but i won't, i'd rather have a glass of fruit juice and put my feet up now. Cheers

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Dear Shelley:

                            Tumbelty,as far as we know to date,was a homosexual.

                            We had been informed that he was married once, by the conman Sanford Conover/Colonel Dunham. Tumbelty, at no time, shows any animosity towards women because they were women,other than what Dunham claimed...and that being that he cast aside women because of an alleged marriage to a woman with an inference to prostitution during the alleged marriage. Thats not evidence of being married, hating women, and even being bi-sexual.

                            We've got guys coming out of the woodwork in the newspaper accounts of Tumbelty, but not one with a bona fide link to his alleged misogyny towards the Better Half.

                            You'll remember that in January 1889 in an article or rather, in my view, an infomercial for the New York World...Tumbelty appeared ready and rarin' to go for the interviewer with some little ditty prepared by a dowager of his acquaintance. Even a lady killer like me doesn't walk around with poems from women.

                            Unless they are from Ally.

                            Before I forget,Shelley....please demonstrate where Tumbelty sold pornography and please answer Ally's post. I'd like to see that too.

                            Thanks and enjoy the juice.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Ally View Post
                              Actually Shelley if you are making a claim that someone did something, it is incumbent upon you to provide the proof, not the person claiming they didn't.

                              That would be like me saying Shelley smokes crack, and then when you say you don't me stating "where's your proof you don't?".

                              If you claim Tumblety sold porno, you need to present your evidence, not ask someone else to prove he didn't.

                              But I'll point you to this anyway...

                              http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.p...0&postcount=20
                              Thanks for the info, still i would have like jmenges to have replied as i asked him for any info. Still it does make some sense as the Victoria's were almost complete prudes as the USA. My opinion stands that Tumbelty was a homosexual on account of the sex of his slave, a male. Who really knows about the psychosexual history of Tumbelty from that piece of info anyway, it would also be possible that he was just biologically made up that way, but who knows.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Although Id rather not be involved in this discussion for the long haul, I did read that Tumblety as a child of 11 or 12 sold pornographic magazines to passers by on boats, at a river he lived near. I recall that he carried them around in a case like a Gladstone,....and I believe that type of evidence is found in a hotel room in one of the lodger suspect stories, though I believe the West End one.

                                Ill see if I can get a source to quote.

                                Cheers.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X