O to W Vote

[mklhawley]

It's so refreshing to see an intelligent response.

Thanks. Keep in mind, you're theory hinges upon Tumblety being the source of the Ripper connection and telling the US papers he's on his way back.

[Lechmere]

It 'hinges' on the rings not being anything to do with Chapman and the ludicrous claims that they were.

It hinges on Tumblety's one political outing being a pro Unionist rather than a Republican.

It hinges on the preposterous suggestion that he was simultaneously a top Ripper suspect yet was given bail and allowed to disappear.

It is backed up by the inability of Tumblety theorists to fight their corner without resorting to childish personal attacks and a refusal to address the issues.

[mklhawley]

Wow; it's hard to keep up with these moving goal posts.

It 'hinges' on the rings not being anything to do with Chapman and the ludicrous claims that they were.

Hmmm, I caught Riordan messing up his research, while demonstrating that the rings were extremely similar to Chapman's.

It hinges on Tumblety's one political outing being a pro Unionist rather than a Republican.

Completely irrelevant.

It hinges on the preposterous suggestion that he was simultaneously a top Ripper suspect yet was given bail and allowed to disappear.

Oh yah, you believe Scotland Yard controlled the British courts. Rigghht.

It is backed up by the inability of Tumblety theorists to fight their corner without resorting to childish personal attacks and a refusal to address the issues.

Hmm, I posted a researched-based reply to Wolf's request and it was you who interrupted with a trolling post, responding with condescending remarks.

[Lechmere]

There are no moving goal posts - I mentioned all these issues in my post and indeed in previous posts on other threads, to which you reacted in a similarly bad tempered manner.
Being critical of your theory is trolling, is it?
Tumblety is to have special protection, is he?

The Riordan reference is, I presume, a reference to your article about the value of Tumblety's two 'set' rings. If so that article is of no relevance as the Chapman rings were plane and without stones. A 'set' ring has stones.
The mere fact that Tumblety's rings were described as 'set' discounts them.
Unless of course you have some evidence that I am unaware of?

Tumblety theorists claim that the bulging Scotland Yard Tumblety file must have been Special Branch related as Littlechild mentioned it - and by extension suggest it covered Tumblety's supposed Fenian activities. This is necessary to give Littlechild the credentials of a Tumblety expert - someone's who's opinion on Tumblety is not just based on office gossip with his senior Scotland Yard colleagues.
Therefore it is routinely claimed that Tumblety had long established Fenian connections. One of these alleged connections was an abortive Canadian electoral contest in the 1850s, where Tumblety withdrew but bragged in a newspaper that he had been invited to stand for the Irish interest.
Unfortunately for this line of argument Tumblety was going to stand for Irish interest on behalf of the Conservatives. The Tories. The pro Unionists. The arch Imperialists. The most anti Fenian group in Canadian politics.

Then as now, if the police vigorously oppose bail, magistrates tend to lend a sympathetic ear.
As a foreigner with multiple charges against his name I doubt that many magistrates would have refused such a request, particularly if they were informed confidentially that the police had good reason to think the suspect was responsible for the Whitechapel Murders.
But if the magistrate was a particularly obstinate personage, unless they were utter incompetents, surely the police would have had a Plan B up their sleeve and kept Tumblety under close observation.
If after his first release they had failed in this endeavour, surely the murder of Mary Kelly - while he was supposedly out on bail - not have taught them a sharp lesson?
After the Kelly murder he was again taken into custody and again given bail and again we are to believe that they failed to keep him under close observation to the extent that he absconded to France.

I look forward to reading your proof that Tumblety was not the source of the stories about himself. Whether that would in any case make him a credible candidate as Jack the Ripper will of course remain to be seen in August.

[mklhawley]

The Riordan reference is, I presume, a reference to your article about the value of Tumblety's two 'set' rings. If so that article is of no relevance as the Chapman rings were plane and without stones. A 'set' ring has stones.
The mere fact that Tumblety's rings were described as 'set' discounts them.
Unless of course you have some evidence that I am unaware of?.

It stated "Two imitation set rings", and Chapman's weren't a set? The inquest stated both rings were on one finger, a wedding ring and a keeper. That's a set! Sorry to blow your theory.

Tumblety theorists claim that the bulging Scotland Yard Tumblety file must have been Special Branch related as Littlechild mentioned it - and by extension suggest it covered Tumblety's supposed Fenian activities. This is necessary to give Littlechild the credentials of a Tumblety expert - someone's who's opinion on Tumblety is not just based on office gossip with his senior Scotland Yard colleagues.

This is called a strawman fallacy, since it's not necessary, since Littlechild didn't have to be a Tumblety expert (he just needed to read the file and hand it over to his boss, Anderson), and since he was speaking about the evidence in the file, it wasn't a baseless opinion, like you - a Tumblety minimalist - are claiming.

Therefore it is routinely claimed that Tumblety had long established Fenian connections. One of these alleged connections was an abortive Canadian electoral contest in the 1850s, where Tumblety withdrew but bragged in a newspaper that he had been invited to stand for the Irish interest.
Unfortunately for this line of argument Tumblety was going to stand for Irish interest on behalf of the Conservatives. The Tories. The pro Unionists. The arch Imperialists. The most anti Fenian group in Canadian politics.

Your hinging Littlechild's credibility on the lie that the only evidence Tumblety was connected to the Irish Nationalist movement was the Canadian election? Rigghht.

Then as now, if the police vigorously oppose bail, magistrates tend to lend a sympathetic ear.
As a foreigner with multiple charges against his name I doubt that many magistrates would have refused such a request, particularly if they were informed confidentially that the police had good reason to think the suspect was responsible for the Whitechapel Murders.
But if the magistrate was a particularly obstinate personage, unless they were utter incompetents, surely the police would have had a Plan B up their sleeve and kept Tumblety under close observation.
If after his first release they had failed in this endeavour, surely the murder of Mary Kelly - while he was supposedly out on bail - not have taught them a sharp lesson?
After the Kelly murder he was again taken into custody and again given bail and again we are to believe that they failed to keep him under close observation to the extent that he absconded to France.

The problem is that you're basing your Tumblety minimalist arguments on assumptions. You really have no idea what transpired. Also, you really have no idea if Hannay had the legal authority to refuse bail for the standing minor charge of gross indecency and indecent assault or not. The bail was exactly that given to others with this charge. Tumblety was not considered a flight risk, because they knew that Tumblety knew he could beat any Ripper murder charges. He ultimately sneaked out because he eventually realized he couldn't beat the gross indecency charge.

I look forward to reading your proof that Tumblety was not the source of the stories about himself. Whether that would in any case make him a credible candidate as Jack the Ripper will of course remain to be seen in August.

Great.

[mklhawley]

Anderson’s enquiries followed the publication of stories in the US press about Tumblety being a Jack the Ripper suspect. It is fairly obvious that Anderson was responding to the US press stories that had themselves been sewn by Tumblety – a practiced self publicist.

Ed,

Your theory really does boil down to this. If you are correct, Tumblety was the source of the Tumblety/Ripper story, and Scotland Yard was merely prosecuting him for gross indecency and indecent assault. Yet, we have Littlechild in a private letter convinced that Tumblety was a suspect and we have Anderson:


Brooklyn Citizen, November 23, 1888
“Is He The Ripper?” A Brooklynite Charged With the Whitechapel Murders Superintendent Campbell Asked by the London Police to Hunt Up the Record of Francis Tumblety — Captain Eason Supplies the Information and It Is Interesting
Police Superintendent Campbell received a cable dispatch yesterday from Mr. Anderson, the deputy chief of the London Police, asking him to make some inquiries about Francis Tumblety, who is under arrest in England on the charge of indecent assault. Tumblety is referred to in the dispatch in the following manner: “He says he is known to you, Chief, as Brooklyn’s Beauty.”
Tumblety was arrested in London some weeks ago as the supposed Whitechapel murderer. Since his incarceration in prison he has boasted of how he had succeeded in baffling the police. He also claimed that he was a resident of Brooklyn, and this was what caused the Deputy Chief of Police to communicate with Superintendent Campbell. The superintendent gave the dispatch immediate attention, and through Captain Eason, of the Second Precinct, has learned all about Tumblety. He came to this city in 1863 from Sherbrook, Canada, where he said he had been a practicing physician. He opened a store on the southeast corner of Fulton and Nassau streets, and sold herb preparations. He did a tremendous business and deposited in the Brooklyn Savings Bank at least $100 a day. He was a very eccentric character, six feet high, dark complexion, large and long flowing mustache, and well built.

Let's assume you are correct that Anderson did not find out Tumblety was a suspect in the Ripper case from the usual police channels - channels he was apprised of hourly - but somehow got ahold of a US paper (tell me how that happened) and read it. Note by November 23, he finally spoke to his subordinates, found out he was indeed charged with gross indecency, somehow convinced his subordinate detective that the US papers might be onto something, then had Tumblety questioned to find out he was from Brooklyn, which 'caused him to contact Superintendent Campbell.'

This chain of events convinced Anderson (and Littlechild) enough to take a personal interest and contact the top cops in at least two US cities.

Question: If Tumblety being a suspect in the Ripper case came from the mind of Tumblety clearly with no evidence to support this (if you are correct), why on earth would this inspire Anderson himself to take action?



Stretching it aren't we, Ed? You do think Anderson was stupid.

[Hunter]

The bail was exactly that given to others with this charge. Tumblety was not considered a flight risk, because they knew that Tumblety knew he could beat any Ripper murder charges. He ultimately sneaked out because he eventually realized he couldn't beat the gross indecency charge.

I'm sorry Mike, but those three sentences don't even add up. The first and last ones do, but that middle one...especially considering the various men we are told were kept under surveillance for long periods of time who had no charges for anything already brought against them other than a suspicion of being complicit in the murders.

[Lechmere]

Mike
A ‘set’ ring isn’t part of a set. It is a ring with a stone set in it.

In the Littlechild’s letter he doesn’t directly refer to the content of the ‘large dossier’ although the information Littlechild gave about Tumblety may be a hint:

He was an American quack… at one time a frequent visitor to London and on these occasions constantly brought under the notice of police… a 'Sycopathia Sexualis' subject he was not known as a 'Sadist' (which the murderer unquestionably was) but his feelings toward women were remarkable and bitter in the extreme, a fact on record. Tumblety was arrested at the time of the murders in connection with unnatural offences and charged at Marlborough Street.

Of course no hint at Fenianism. It was all about his sexual practices.
Prior to 1888 there is no evidence that Tumblety had any connection to Irish republicanism – beyond that he once stayed at a hotel owned by a Fenian.
As I have pointed out he boasted of being selected to stand as a candidate for the diametrically opposite political cause. He also boasted of visiting Ireland in company with a member of the landed gentry – the class that was supposedly oppressing the poor Irish. The evidence we have for Tumblety prior to 1888 points in the opposite direction to Fenianism. Actually I don’t suppose he gave politics the slightest thought.
So no, I am not just hinging the contention that Littlechild would not have known of Tumblety due to any alleged Fenian allegiance on the Canadian election – although it has to be said that the Canadian election blows a massive hole in any attempt to paint Tumblety as a Fenian. In fact it pretty much sinks the proposition.

It is the Tumblety theorists who endeavour to give Littlechild’s opinions greater credibility by inventing Fenian connections for Tumblety.

Tumblety was held without bail for several days and Magistrates then as now do have the right to refuse bail.

Tumblety was not considered a flight risk, because they knew that Tumblety knew he could beat any Ripper murder charges.

What an odd claim to make.

[Lechmere]

Mike
The timeline runs like this
• Tumblety appears in a minor London court on charges of gross indecency.
• News of this appearance is reported in the US press, with the suggestion that the gross indecency charges are a subterfuge to hold him, as he is really under investigation for being Jack the Ripper.
• Anderson makes enquiries of various US police forces.

If Tumblety fed the information to the US press – via their London correspondent – then Anderson would not have heard about Tumblety being a Ripper suspect via internal police channels.
Anderson would have heard of it via a US based British official – diplomat perhaps, or visiting policeman. Perhaps the US press wired their copy directly to Scotland Yard for comment.

It would not have been exactly difficult for Anderson to have got wind that the US press were talking up Tumblety as a suspect, nor would it have been inappropriate for Anderson to make a few enquiries about this. It would have been easy to send telegrams to the US just as it would have been easy to ask for basic details concerning his arrest in London.
This doesn’t imply Anderson was stupid – it means he was reacting to events.

As for Littlechild, as he wasn’t directly involved in the Ripper investigation and as he had no reason to know of Tumblety directly himself, he can only have based his opinions on chit chat in Scotland Yard.

[lynn cates]

investigation

Hello Edward. Do we know for certain that Littlechild was not directly involved in the investigation?

Cheers.
LC

[Lechmere]

No - but a case built on what we don't know is intrinsically weak.
Littlechilds career is fairly well documented

[mklhawley]

Mike
The timeline runs like this
• Tumblety appears in a minor London court on charges of gross indecency.
• News of this appearance is reported in the US press, with the suggestion that the gross indecency charges are a subterfuge to hold him, as he is really under investigation for being Jack the Ripper.
• Anderson makes enquiries of various US police forces.

If Tumblety fed the information to the US press – via their London correspondent – then Anderson would not have heard about Tumblety being a Ripper suspect via internal police channels.
Anderson would have heard of it via a US based British official – diplomat perhaps, or visiting policeman. Perhaps the US press wired their copy directly to Scotland Yard for comment.

It would not have been exactly difficult for Anderson to have got wind that the US press were talking up Tumblety as a suspect, nor would it have been inappropriate for Anderson to make a few enquiries about this. It would have been easy to send telegrams to the US just as it would have been easy to ask for basic details concerning his arrest in London.
This doesn’t imply Anderson was stupid – it means he was reacting to events.

I'd like to repeat Edward Stowe's post here. Apparently, he's saying Tumblety was the source for his connection with the Whitechapel crimes. Don't change these goal posts, Ed.

[DVV]

The isn't a single suspect in that list.
I can't vote.

[lynn cates]

agree

Hello Edward. Thanks.

"No - but a case built on what we don't know is intrinsically weak."

Completely agree. But this is surely not a sentiment you would wish to push very far?

Cheers.
LC

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Hi Mike.

I apologise to everyone at the start for the length of this.

New stuff since you last wrote about this subject in 2004.

Of course. There was an article on Tumblety and Dunham by Carman Cumming (the world authority on Charles Dunham) in 2006 and Tim Riordan’s ground breaking book on Tumblety in 2009. Sadly, after that there has been no objective and/or unbiased look at the subject worth reading.

Case in point: your above post. Anyone who has actually read Cumming (once again, he’s the world authority on Charles Dunham) knows what Cumming’s views are concerning Dunham’s credibility:
“[he was a] spy, forger, reptile journalist, and dirty tricks artist” and that he had “a career in the black arts of propaganda and false information.”

Here’s another example: when discussing Dunham’s testimony during the trial of the Lincoln assassins, Cumming states: “As with much of Dunham’s work, this story (that he was present when orders from Richmond arrived to Confederate operators in Montreal approving the killing of Lincoln) is discredited mainly on the grounds that almost any statement of Dunham’s that can be checked, from the pre-war estate swindles to post-war political scams, is a lie.”

His expert opinions on Dunham’s Tumblety story in the New York World are telling:
“… the ‘interview’ sounds more like a written account and was probably, like most of Dunham’s work, an act of imagination offered for profit”
And:
“Dunham helpfully painted the ‘Indian herb doctor’ in lurid terms: as a psychotic, an exhibitionist, a misogynist, and a charlatan healer who kept in his office an evil collection of female body parts. Several writers have quoted this account as being true, but it is now clear that Dunham himself was also a most remarkable liar and scoundrel, possibly the least reliable witness who ever faked a newspaper column. Therefore, his account of Dr. Tumblety must be treated with great caution.”

Finally, Cumming sums up Dunham’s Tumblety tale this way:
“So while the truth of his Tumblety story remains clouded, there can be no doubt whatever of the complexity of Dunham’s lies. Each part of his Tumblety story will therefore have to be tested, piece by piece, against other available evidence.”

As I have pointed out, time and time and time again, this has already been done by people like myself and Tim Riordan and everything, let me repeat that, EVERYTHING that Dunham has to say about Tumblety and his time in Washington has proved to be either wrong, a lie, or no source other than Dunham can be found.

For example, Tumblety’s supposed anatomical collection. There is absolutely no evidence that it ever existed outside of Dunham’s imagination. He claimed that he went to Tumblety’s rooms, which he believed were on “H Street.” He described Tumblety’s living arrangements as “There were three rooms on a floor, the rear one being his office, with a bedroom or two a story higher…” Dunham stated that Tumblety “then invited us into his office where he illustrated his lecture so to speak...” None of this fits the known facts.

Tumblety did not live on H Street. He lived at Willard’s Hotel, the grandest and most fashionable hotel in Washington at the time, at 1401 Pennsylvania Avenue and 14th Street. It is odd that Dunham could have forgotten this. Tumblety’s office, however, was situated at No. 11 Washington Buildings at 344 & 346 Pennsylvania Avenue and 7th Street. Tumblety’s office was at this location for the entire time he was in Washington so he did not, therefore, have three rooms on one floor with “the rear one” being his office and with a bedroom or two a story higher as Dunham said he did. Testing Dunham’s words against the available evidence in this case, as Cumming’s suggests, has proved that Dunham lied. You seem to constantly ignore this inconvenient point. Unfortunately ignoring it won’t make it magically go away.

The intriguing point about this eyewitness account is that showing military officers his anatomical specimens is exactly what Tumblety would have done. Why? In the nineteenth century, evidence for being a credible surgeon occurred in two ways; showing a diploma and showing anatomical specimens. According to Michael Sappol, curator-historian at the National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, Maryland:

“In the nineteenth century, any medical college worth its salt had an anatomical museum and pathological cabinet. There was a pedagogical circle of life: medical students and colleagues were expected to study specimens and also to produce them. Membership in the profession was consolidated by a common culture of collectorship. In formal medical discourse the specimen was accounted as an educational aid or as a record of a typical or unusual anatomical feature or pathological condition . . . The professional anatomical museum was a repository of medical souvenirs. In other works: stuff in jars skeletons, dried preparations, casts and models in wax, plaster, papier mâché, and wood.”

Doctor A.W. Bates, PhD, MD, at the Department of Histopathology in the Royal Free Hospital, London, England, affirms this point and explains it was the same in mid-Victorian England. He states,

“Anatomy teachers assembled their own collections or ‘museums’ of material with which to illustrate lectures . . . Ownership of a museum indicated that a teacher was likely to be financially solvent and, in the 1820s, possession of a museum worth more than 500 pounds was suggested as a prerequisite for an anatomy teacher to be recognized by the College of Surgeons.”

Sappol then states,

“Doctors were known to keep a few specimens or a cabinet of material on display in their offices as trophies and, more broadly, as objects that advertised a medical vocation (as did diplomas, weighty medical tomes, medicines, and instruments). The specimens served as a credential, proof that the doctor had dissected and had special knowledge of the interior of the body.”

Tumblety wasn’t “a medical college,” with a need for a pathological teaching museum. He didn’t collect specimens so that he could give lectures. He didn’t teach anatomy. He certainly wouldn’t display specimens as proof that he had dissected and had special knowledge of the interior of the human body. To suggest otherwise completely ignores Tumblety’s identification of himself as “The Indian Herb Doctor.” Tumblety was a Thomsonian and Eclectic physician. He sold herbal, botanical and vegetable cures and eschewed the medical establishment’s use of poisons, such as mercury, and of the cutting open of the human body to perform surgery. He felt that all disease could be cured by medicinal herbs and remedies alone. This “gentler” form of medicine was what made him, and his kind, attractive to those who were terrified of the medical “butcher.” He did not advertise his use of herbs and flowers to cure all ills, and that “With blood our hands we never stain,” but then show his patients anatomical specimens to prove that he had dissected bodies. He was against the use of the knife in medicine.

In his autobiography, Tumblety states: “When General McClellan was appointed Commander of the Army of the Potomac, I partially made up [my] mind to tender my professional services as a surgeon in one of the regiments, and I had the assurance . . .”

But of course, we know he had a different agenda; to make money. Tumblety wanted to convince General McClellan, the man in control, that he was a credible surgeon, which would allow him to mingle with the military men and wives and ply his trade. Because he was not allowed an audience with the General, he did the next best thing, meet and mingle with military officers; the General’s eyes and ears. Showing them his anatomical museum ‘illustrating his lecture’, as Colonel Dunham explained, is exactly what Dunham needed to do, since he didn’t have an authentic diploma.

Tumblety could, and did, ply his trade in Washington successfully without being a member of the Union Army. He supposedly made up to $30,000, a huge fortune, in one year alone. Tumblety also had the friendship of the Provost-Marshall of Washington, General Wordsworth, and, if he is to be believed, travelled in the highest circles in the Capitol. How, if Tumblety had gained a commission, would he be making money if he was sent into the field? How were Tumblety’s Washington newspaper advertisements, which touted his ability to cure pimples, and which also attacked regular medicine, designed to get him into the army when, until May of 1862, only regular medical doctors could obtain commissions in the army? How was Tumblety supposed to pass the stringent medical examination? Showing a collection of body parts to partying officers at a nonexistent location wasn’t going to help him in any way.

So, was Colonel Dunham a credible witness? That fact that what he reported is exactly what Tumblety would have done to make money, certainly supports his memory…

As shown above, Dunham was not a credible witness. Stating that what he reported “is exactly what Tumblety would have done to make money” is not evidence, let alone proof in any way, that Tumblety actually did this and Dunham’s story has been shown to be full of lies.

A quick scan of contemporary newspaper articles can point to Dunham’s reptile journalism, lies, and scamming, but this only happened during times he was baiting someone, especially during the Civil War and the murder of President Lincoln. Foremost expert on Dunham states this, Carman Cumming, author of Devil’s Game: The Civil War Intrigues of Charles A. Dunham,

“The most significant [evidence] indicate that Dunham, for an extended period of the war, systematically and ingeniously faked stories damaging Confederates and Northern Peace Democrats. Circumstantial evidence suggests as well that in many of these projects, and in his intrigues in the South and in Canada, he may have worked in collusion with someone at Washington.”

Dunham was a double agent for the North, and his job was to be the best liar (or he’d die). Pathological liars have no agenda other than to lie. He was far from being a pathological liar; he was a patriot. Keep in mind, during all of his adventures around the Civil War, he was having kids with his wife and building a family.

The above completely ignores the actual historic record and what Carman Cummings wrote about Dunham’s criminal life. “This only happened during times he was baiting someone?” This is ridiculous and utterly unsupportable. Who was Dunham “baiting” when he and his criminal cronies were stealing money from grieving families with their inheritance scams? How was Dunham a patriot when he and his criminal cronies were trying to rip off the U.S. Government – during a time of war – by asking to be reimbursed for nonexistent expenses they claimed they accrued by raising a fake regiment? Who was he “baiting” then? The U.S. Federal Army? Who was he “baiting,” in later life, when he was pulling the exact same inheritance cons of his youth? The man was a convicted criminal who made his living by trickery, deceit, forgery and lies, according to Cummings. Another inconvenient point not even mentioned, or hinted at, by you.

When Dunham put together his “School for Perjury,” in order to fabricate a connection between the leadership of the Confederacy with the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, he used several of his criminal friends to give perjured testimony to the assassination commission. One of these was a woman identified as “Sarah Douglas.” She duly gave her false testimony to the Bureau of Military Justice on the 6th of February, 1866. Upon later investigation it turned out that “Sarah Douglas” was none other than Ophelia Dunham, Charles Dunham’s wife. So much for trustworthy Dunham merely having kids with his wife and building a family.

Wolf.