Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Tumblety - Hermaphrodite.

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

  • #61
    Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
    Wolf has a major problem with his line of argument. Actually, he has several, but let me point out just one. And you don't need access to any other documentation to appreciate it.

    In 1888 it was reported in the press that Tumilty (my name for him) could not be held for the Whitechapel Murders, but, instead, was to be charged with certain laws passed after the "Maiden Tribute" exposures.

    That's it.

    That is all that was ever reported about those specific charges, and all the focus instead shifted to his supposed connection to the WC murder case.

    But note: the Maiden Tribute actually had to do with sex with an underaged girl.

    After Stead's exposure in the Pall Mall Gazette the ensuing outrage eventually led to the Crimes Against the Persons Act, which famously, or infamously, dealt not only with the age of consent but also included statutes prohibiting all sexual acts other than sodomy between two consenting males.

    Consent being the key word.

    Anyone reading that 1888 blurb might assume, as did nearly all historians of the WC murder case, that Tumilty had been arrested for consensual sexual acts with rent boys.

    Let that sink in, because--again--the relevant point is that the exact nature of these 1888 offenses were not known until the late 1990s.

    People seem to be forgetting that point: the 1990s.

    That is when the appropriate court calendar was rediscovered after the publication of Evans & Gainey's book.

    And what turned up in those papers? O, nothing much, beyond the bald fact that Scotland Yard and the Treasury had four young men willing to swear under oath that Tumilty had sexually assaulted them with "FORCE OF ARMS."

    Force of Arms: with the use of a weapon.

    Doughty, Fisher, Brice, and Crowley.

    So here, precisely, is where Wolf's argument starts to crumble.

    Despite the fact that the relevant information was locked up in the bowels of the Old Bailey, here, in 1904, Norris is telling basically the same story as Doughty, Fisher, Brice, and Crowley.

    He has been sexually assaulted by Tumilty with force of arms: specifically, a knife.

    Yet, according to Wolf's theories, speculations, musings, what ever you wish to call them, Norris is a liar.

    So how did Norris know?

    Lucky guess?

    Just a wild coincidence that 90 years later documents revealing that Tumilty had indeed sexually assaulted four men "with force of arms" in the 1880s would turn up to help confirm his story?

    Or is it just possible that Norris is telling the truth and this was Tumilty's actual behavior in the 1880s?

    A more reasonable conclusion is that Norris (as he admits) knew Tumilty over a several year period, and is simply bad with dates and is now garbling together three or four different events that happened at different times 15-20 years previously.

    And it seems obvious to me that that is what is happening, because Norris refers to different heads of the NOLA police, sometimes referring to 1881 and at other times to 1891. It doesn't help that the lawyer is a lousy interviewer and his questions are all over the map. There is no reason to latch on to Wolf's sinister explanation.

    It's always easy to call the victim of a sexual assault a liar. Norris, we are told, is lying. But there are four other young men in the UK stating that Tumilty sexually assaulted them, and I can name three others in the US that stated the same thing.

    At what point do their stories become credible? A rather topical question here in the USA, I would think.

    For make no mistake about it. Wolf dearly wants this to go away because it not only puts a knife in the hand of a police suspect in the Whitechapel Murder case, it strong suggests that he had a similar knife in London in the autumn of 1888.

    Unless anyone wants to argue that the "force of arms" was a toothbrush.
    lol. great post. I would add that all of wolfs argument is based on that everyone else is corrupt and lying and tumblety was as pure as the driven snow. yeah right.

    a snake oil salesmen wouldn't have a knife because its against his (false/lying) advertising claims. hahaha, that one made me laugh.
    Last edited by Abby Normal; 11-17-2017, 11:19 AM.
    "Is all that we see or seem
    but a dream within a dream?"

    -Edgar Allan Poe


    "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
    quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

    -Frederick G. Abberline

    Comment


    • #62
      Nicely put.
      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


      • #63
        Originally posted by mklhawley View Post
        Well, the publisher promised me a fall release, but editing hasn't even begun. My hands are tied. Other problems with Wolf's comments are not part of the documents, such as Tumblety not being a misogynist. This was already debunked, convincing the likes of Martin Fido and Paul Begg.

        Mike
        Sorry to hear of the delay.
        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


        • #64
          See, and the way I read this statement

          Now, I read and new of the White Chapel business and did know it at the time."

          to me it reads -when I read about the White Chapel killings, I knew that Tumblety said all should be disemboweled- now, the argument has been made that it DOESNT say that at all, but we are reading it without the benefit of word emphasis or punctuation, or follow up questions...just... the way I read it, and it makes sense as far as time line goes.. but I can't be sure...as the detractors cant be sure it doesn't say it.....sadly we will never know for sure---Ally and I had a great back and forth on the wording.. She saying it is impossible to read it the way I do...saying that it doesn't make sense .. I explaining exactly how and why I read it the way I do (and as do many people who have read it...as an experiment. After the arguments, I had several people I know and work with read it.. then explain to me what it meant, my way or her way.. and it was about a 50/50 split..which is again why I say.. this is what I think.. not what I know

          As far as you claiming "you are now a true, bona fide Tumblety supporter" that is also not quite true... I now believe that it is POSSIBLE he COULD BE the killer, and I also now believe that HE WAS and should be taken seriously as a SUSPECT....but a supporter, Sorry, that I wouldn't say... have I spent time researching it, yes, and my opinion has changed as a result on some aspects...but I still insist we will never know for sure who Jack was

          Isn't it better when we all play nice!!!!

          Jonathan.. only 1/2 hour drive.... hmmm wait till next season and I'll meet you there for a Cardinals game!!!

          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


          • #65
            Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
            And what turned up in those papers? O, nothing much, beyond the bald fact that Scotland Yard and the Treasury had four young men willing to swear under oath that Tumilty had sexually assaulted them with "FORCE OF ARMS."

            Force of Arms: with the use of a weapon.
            A slight correction required here RP. The wording of the indictment was actually "with Force and Arms". That was standard, and quite ancient, wording for a charge of this type in the 19th century, the expression being derived from the Latin vi et armis. It could certainly mean that violence was involved (and Tumblety was charged with indecent assault as well as gross indecency) but also carried the less obviously violent meaning of "by unlawful means". It was not (and should not be) understood literally to mean that a weapon was used.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Steadmund Brand View Post

              Jonathan.. only 1/2 hour drive.... hmmm wait till next season and I'll meet you there for a Cardinals game!!!

              Steadmund Brand
              It'll be next Spring. Meet me in St. Louis.

              JM

              Comment


              • #67
                You start singing like Judy Garland and I am staying in Buffalo!!!!!!
                "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


                • #68
                  Is anyone else at the stage with Tumblety that if it was to turn out he wasn't a quack at all but a master alchemist who really had discovered the elixir of life, faked his own death and was currently living quietly somewhere in the bay area you wouldn't be completely broadsided by it?
                  My opinion is all I have to offer here,

                  Dave.

                  Smilies are canned laughter.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by DirectorDave View Post
                    Is anyone else at the stage with Tumblety that if it was to turn out he wasn't a quack at all but a master alchemist who really had discovered the elixir of life, faked his own death and was currently living quietly somewhere in the bay area you wouldn't be completely broadsided by it?
                    LOL. I think this find is pretty big in its own right let alone a check mark for the Dr Ts supporters as a ripper suspect, for sure.
                    "Is all that we see or seem
                    but a dream within a dream?"

                    -Edgar Allan Poe


                    "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                    quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                    -Frederick G. Abberline

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      The find was pretty BIG...and Michael Sandknop did a great job of digging around to find it, and Michael Hawley did an amazing job at figuring out what he had..I am proud that I was able to contribute and help the two Michaels, It just saddens me that it has caused so much bickering.. finds like these are suppose to make us all happy instead we get

                      To me it doesn't matter if you think Tumblety was a suspect or not (I personally do...again, that is not to say he was The Ripper...but he was a suspect) but it does give us a bit more information about a truly fascinating character...and I don't think anyone would argue that he was indeed that.

                      I do laugh that I am labeled a Tumbletyite now... for MANY many years I had to argue that I wasn't strictly a Kosminskyite (which I believe Mike even refers to me as on the 1st Rippercast we were on together hahah)

                      Steadmund Brand/Brian
                      "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


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                        LOL. I think this find is pretty big in its own right let alone a check mark for the Dr Ts supporters as a ripper suspect, for sure.
                        Totally agree.

                        Im one who doesnt think Tumblety is our man.

                        Always thought he was a suspect.

                        the more Mike finds the more interested I become.

                        Im a bit of a sucker for evidence, not invention and one thing I am dead sure of is I need to clear the police suspects if the day before I bother with anyone else because the police actually had the evidence that has been lost to us.

                        This bloke the more we find the less reason we have to remove him from the list.
                        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


                        • #72
                          My take

                          Please excuse my lateness to this thread. And I have not had the chance to listen to the Podcast in question yet though I intend to when I get the time. I seem to be hearing two claims from people who have listened to the podcast concerning Francis Tumblety--ONE that Tumblety was what we call today "intersex" (previously called hermaphroditic) and TWO that he is said to have committed sexual assault against four people in the East End when he was there (NOT engaged in acts of consensual sex).

                          I also don't have a dog in the fight and will just give my first impression of hearing this information for the first time. This is me playing devils advocate mind you...Firstly, if Tumblety WAS in fact "intersex" this tends to make a claim of him sexually assaulting ANY ONE difficult to believe. Not IMPOSSIBLE mind you, but more difficult to believe. Not to get too graphic but many intersex males have much less erectile tissue which makes sex very difficult...ESPECIALLY if you attempted to FORCE sex on someone. I also tend to believe that the police were simply referring to a sexual act between males and not implying there was an actual sexual assault committed.

                          Secondly, even if they WERE implying an actual sexual assault I can only say that if I were a homosexual back in 1888 England (which was both illegal and considered a mental illness), and policemen found me in a compromising position with another male, I think I would say whatever it took to not be both "outed" to the public, as well as possibly prosecuted. So if a policeman steers me in the direction "You say you aren't a homosexual but you were caught in the act with this man...are you saying then that the man sexually assaulted you?". I would take this and probably run with it. And of course policemen of the time during the Ripper crimes are looking for anyone they would have considered "off" or what they considered showing signs of "insanity". Police of this period unfortunately would have lumped homosexuality in with things we would today consider extremely harmful such as pedophilia or rape. And Tumblety, this eccentric American, has been caught in compromising positions with other males in the East End during the Autumn of 1888. OF COURSE they are going to see him as a possible suspect! They had no sense of what kind of a person does these sorts of acts during this time.

                          Also it always seemed to me that Tumblety saying that he had a "grudge" against women was most likely an excuse for him to explain the fact the he was rarely seen in the company of women because he was in fact not romantically interested in women (because he was gay). Being outed as a homosexual back in 1888 would have been catastrophic to a person's well being so any person in this position is likely to want to throw off suspicion of this in any way they can. Many people like poet Crane Heart took their own life when they were publicly outed and that was even in the 1930's (50 years later). And of course we all know what happened to Oscar Wilde.
                          Jeff

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Pinkerton View Post
                            Please excuse my lateness to this thread. And I have not had the chance to listen to the Podcast in question yet though I intend to when I get the time. I seem to be hearing two claims from people who have listened to the podcast concerning Francis Tumblety--ONE that Tumblety was what we call today "intersex" (previously called hermaphroditic) and TWO that he is said to have committed sexual assault against four people in the East End when he was there (NOT engaged in acts of consensual sex).

                            I also don't have a dog in the fight and will just give my first impression of hearing this information for the first time. This is me playing devils advocate mind you...Firstly, if Tumblety WAS in fact "intersex" this tends to make a claim of him sexually assaulting ANY ONE difficult to believe. Not IMPOSSIBLE mind you, but more difficult to believe. Not to get too graphic but many intersex males have much less erectile tissue which makes sex very difficult...ESPECIALLY if you attempted to FORCE sex on someone. I also tend to believe that the police were simply referring to a sexual act between males and not implying there was an actual sexual assault committed.

                            Secondly, even if they WERE implying an actual sexual assault I can only say that if I were a homosexual back in 1888 England (which was both illegal and considered a mental illness), and policemen found me in a compromising position with another male, I think I would say whatever it took to not be both "outed" to the public, as well as possibly prosecuted. So if a policeman steers me in the direction "You say you aren't a homosexual but you were caught in the act with this man...are you saying then that the man sexually assaulted you?". I would take this and probably run with it. And of course policemen of the time during the Ripper crimes are looking for anyone they would have considered "off" or what they considered showing signs of "insanity". Police of this period unfortunately would have lumped homosexuality in with things we would today consider extremely harmful such as pedophilia or rape. And Tumblety, this eccentric American, has been caught in compromising positions with other males in the East End during the Autumn of 1888. OF COURSE they are going to see him as a possible suspect! They had no sense of what kind of a person does these sorts of acts during this time.

                            Also it always seemed to me that Tumblety saying that he had a "grudge" against women was most likely an excuse for him to explain the fact the he was rarely seen in the company of women because he was in fact not romantically interested in women (because he was gay). Being outed as a homosexual back in 1888 would have been catastrophic to a person's well being so any person in this position is likely to want to throw off suspicion of this in any way they can. Many people like poet Crane Heart took their own life when they were publicly outed and that was even in the 1930's (50 years later). And of course we all know what happened to Oscar Wilde.
                            hi Pink
                            to me the two most important things to come out of this is the fact that he stated that prostitutes should be disemboweled and that he showed he had knives/surgical incidents. so we have motive now and means and with him being there-opportunity.

                            re-using his hate of women as an excuse for homosexuality? don't think so-I mean he said this to Norris who he was trying to bed, so that dosnt really make sense. plus back then society was more private abou that sort of thing. he didn't need to make excuses for not being seen with women.

                            also, could someone please tell me more specifically what the charges and circumstances he was arrested for in London? did he try to rape someone with a weapon?
                            did he proposition the wrong man who then went to police? I mean how serious and violent was it?
                            "Is all that we see or seem
                            but a dream within a dream?"

                            -Edgar Allan Poe


                            "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                            quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                            -Frederick G. Abberline

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              plus back then society was more private abou that sort of thing. he didn't need to make excuses for not being seen with women.
                              Abbie, I take your point about Norris. As to society being more private about that sort of thing, I think this shouldn't be overestimated. I saw a documentary about President Buchanon in the U.S. who was the only lifelong bachelor who served as president from 1857-1861. MANY congressmen and former politicians made disparaging remarks behind Buchanon's back because they suspected he was homosexual (he also had a male friend he lived with). This included Andrew Jackson who made such remarks when Buchanon served as a congressman. And it is actually likely that Buchanon was NOT gay but him being a lifelong bachelor was enough to get people talking even during the Victorian era.

                              I personally am extremely skeptical that Tumblety could have been the Ripper. Firstly, if you look purely at statistics the vast majority of serial killers who don't murder for financial gain do it because they are sexual sadists. Especially serial killers who kill prostitutes. And sexual sadists who are gay tend to murder males, not females (Jefferey Dahmer, William Macdonald, Herb Baumeister, John Wayne Gacy, etc). Secondly, the Ripper MUST have known the East End area extremely well to be able to murder women undetected when policemen would literally pass the same spot every 30 minutes. And he did this in a densely populated area. I can't see an out of town American just drop into the East End and manage to pull that off.

                              I personally think ALL of the suspects that have been put forward during the time of the murders were TERRIBLE. But that's just my opinion.
                              Jeff

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                also, could someone please tell me more specifically what the charges and circumstances he was arrested for in London? did he try to rape someone with a weapon?
                                did he proposition the wrong man who then went to police? I mean how serious and violent was it?
                                Hi Abby,

                                Everything that I have read and seen the charge was "Gross Indecency".


                                (from Wiki) Gross indecency is a legal term that was originally used to criminalize sexual activity between men short of sodomy, which required penetration. The term was first used in British law in a statute of the British Parliament in 1885 and was carried forward in other statutes throughout the British Empire.
                                I'm not sure where Pinkerton is getting "he is said to have committed sexual assault against four people in the East End"? Or where the claim that it wasn't consensual is coming from, (it may not have been, but I don't recall any evidence stating such).
                                My opinion is all I have to offer here,

                                Dave.

                                Smilies are canned laughter.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X