Tweet
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
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
Comment