Critiquing arguments against Tumblety, or Francis the Ripper

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

This is high praise indeed, as Wolf is hard to please. I will definitely get this book.

Hi Tom.

I'm usually hard to please because I'm reviewing for Ripper Notes's readership and Dan and I decided early on that we were going to try and give people the straight goods on published works. I thought about that when I read your quote above. Let me add something to what I said earlier.

I loved Tim's book but I did so because I'm one of the small handful of people in the world who put some work into him. What I'm saying is that the average person who may be looking for a Tumblety as Ripper book may not like it as much. If you want an almost monthly look at Tumblety's activities: where he went, what he did, what newspaper ads he used in various cities, then this is the book for you. If not, then the book can seem a bit repetitive.

There were also a few things Tim said which I didn't totally agree with but for the most part they are minor. Things like the fact that although Tumblety's Toronto office was listed in his ads as being "across from the St. Lawrence Hall," and Tim does a great job explaining what that means in terms of Tumblety's status if it was true, the fact is that the office wasn't across from the Hall (but you'd have to be from Toronto to know that). And the fact that Isaac Golliday didn't actually disappear but went to California instead.

I strongly disagree, however, with Tim's opinion that Tumblety actually was asked to run against D'Arcy McGee in the Colonial Parliamentary elections of 1857. There's no way, in my mind, that that can be true given the political situation in Montreal at the time. There is one other thing which I strongly disagree with in the book but I admit that I may be wrong about it so I'll not go into it further here.

In the end, a great book for Tumblety scholars, or people who want to know more about Tumblety's life and movements, but not for the casual Ripper reader.

Wolf.

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Wolf, we shall have to agree to disagree again. I am not stupid enough to fly in the face of facts such as Conover's appalling past history casting serious doubt on his word, nor that meticulous research on Tumblety carried out over the fourteen years since we wrote our book has certainly changed aspects of the hypothetical case against him.

However, Littlechild clearly refers to Tumblety's homosexual proclivities when referring to him as a '"Sycopathia Sexualis" subject' but I cannot accept that Littlechild's words "his feelings towards women were remarkable and bitter in the extreme, a fact on record" do not indicate something more than that. This certainly seems to me to indicate more than the fact that he was merely homosexual. The words 'remarkable' and 'bitter in the extreme', seems to indicate to me that there was something more that indicated such extreme feelings and bitterness. Clearly you do not agree and there, I guess, it will have to remain.

A very gentlemanly response. It's gratifying to see that debate on the boards doesn't have to lead to anger or bitterness and we don't have to fight tooth and nail to ram our opinions down each others throats. I, as usual, tip my hat to you.

Wolf.

[mklhawley]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;116438]

A brief excerpt from the book which should serve as the standard for all future suspect based works in our field...particularly Chapter 14.

" A final point in relation to the letter: Littlechild's reference to the "large dossier" on Tumblety has been taken to suggest political implications. As Littlechild was head of the Special Branch, whose job it was to keep an eye on Irish rebels and anarchists, it has been suggested that the dossier related to Tumblety's Fenian activities. This is not what Littlechild said but rather what people have read into it. Littlechild said the police had an eye on Tumblety: he did not say the Special Branch did. Had Tumblety been under investigation by the Special Branch, we could have expected Littlechild to be better informed about his life."

If that be the case how come McNaghten never mentioned Tumblety in his memo which was obvioulsy prepared from files that scotland yard still had on the Ripper invetsigation.

In my opinion the viabilty of Tumblety being a suspect for JTR has been hanging from a thread for some time now only a matter of time before the thread breaks.

"The truth is still out there"

Excuse my ignorance, but was McNaughten was Littlechild's superior and also part of the Special Branch? If so, are we assuming he would spill the beans about previously classified information? As a retired commander in the Navy, I am still not allowed to discuss classified info that I receive on active duty. Was McNaughten under these same constraints, or he certainly would have spilled the beans?

Mike

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=Howard Brown;116032]A brief excerpt from the book which should serve as the standard for all future suspect based works in our field...particularly Chapter 14.

" A final point in relation to the letter: Littlechild's reference to the "large dossier" on Tumblety has been taken to suggest political implications. As Littlechild was head of the Special Branch, whose job it was to keep an eye on Irish rebels and anarchists, it has been suggested that the dossier related to Tumblety's Fenian activities. This is not what Littlechild said but rather what people have read into it. Littlechild said the police had an eye on Tumblety: he did not say the Special Branch did. Had Tumblety been under investigation by the Special Branch, we could have expected Littlechild to be better informed about his life."

If that be the case how come McNaghten never mentioned Tumblety in his memo which was obvioulsy prepared from files that scotland yard still had on the Ripper invetsigation.

In my opinion the viabilty of Tumblety being a suspect for JTR has been hanging from a thread for some time now only a matter of time before the thread breaks.

"The truth is still out there"

[mklhawley]

I certainly am convinced that the natural mindset of either straight or gay people have changed little if at all in the last 1 million years. Gay men love their moms and their sisters and often have women as their "best friends" (i.e. girlfriends, if you will). They do not find women sexually attractive but as we all know they love to play dress up with them, hence the overwhelming number of gay dress deigners. They wish, in some cases, that they were women. I have met a few who disdain women but because they are SO turned off by womens' bodies the last thing in the world they would do is touch one, let alone touch, hold and cut out a vagina or a uterus. Can you imagine a gay lady holding up a whang and whacking it off? No, it doesn't play. Try to put yourself in the position of the gay man. ICKK!! That's how they feel about touching womens privates. For these reasons I am extremely sceptical that Tumblety the homosexual would have done thiese killings. I respect any disagreement but please give your reasons for dismissing my argument. Thanks

Hi Goulstonstreet,

I guess by looking at the data on serial killers. I will repeat the quote from the experts:

"Homosexual serial killers have most frequently chosen young boys or gay men as their victims, although some have victimized females as well. Most of the killers have raped their victims either before or after killing them, although in some cases they have killed after consensual homosexual sex. There have been heterosexual serial killers who have targeted gay victims (e.g., Colin Ireland)"

There have been cases of homosexual serial killers killing women, but it looks as though their motives were different. We are assuming with the woman-hater discussions that Tumblety would have used this as his motive. It could also have been multiple motives. ...if he was infact JTR.

Mike

[ghoulstonstreet]

I certainly am convinced that the natural mindset of either straight or gay people have changed little if at all in the last 1 million years. Gay men love their moms and their sisters and often have women as their "best friends" (i.e. girlfriends, if you will). They do not find women sexually attractive but as we all know they love to play dress up with them, hence the overwhelming number of gay dress deigners. They wish, in some cases, that they were women. I have met a few who disdain women but because they are SO turned off by womens' bodies the last thing in the world they would do is touch one, let alone touch, hold and cut out a vagina or a uterus. Can you imagine a gay lady holding up a whang and whacking it off? No, it doesn't play. Try to put yourself in the position of the gay man. ICKK!! That's how they feel about touching womens privates. For these reasons I am extremely sceptical that Tumblety the homosexual would have done thiese killings. I respect any disagreement but please give your reasons for dismissing my argument. Thanks

[Howard Brown]

A brief excerpt from the book which should serve as the standard for all future suspect based works in our field...particularly Chapter 14.

" A final point in relation to the letter: Littlechild's reference to the "large dossier" on Tumblety has been taken to suggest political implications. As Littlechild was head of the Special Branch, whose job it was to keep an eye on Irish rebels and anarchists, it has been suggested that the dossier related to Tumblety's Fenian activities. This is not what Littlechild said but rather what people have read into it. Littlechild said the police had an eye on Tumblety: he did not say the Special Branch did. Had Tumblety been under investigation by the Special Branch, we could have expected Littlechild to be better informed about his life."



Kudos to Tim Riordan.

[Stewart P Evans]

Praise

Ignored by whom? Certainly not myself, who considers these 'nuggets' the truth strength of the work. The Lardy suspect, the Batty Street Lodger, are two inclusions in the book that have sparked much discussion and debate, and there are many more besides. The Lodger/American Serial Killer is a rare example of how a 'suspect' book should be presented. It's responsible, engaging, full of new information and interpretations, and presents the case against a legitimate contemporary suspect. If every Ripper suspect book since had followed your and Gainey's example, Ripperology would be 50 years ahead of where it is now. And this is coming from someone who doesn't think Tumblety was the Ripper!
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott

Now that is praise indeed, thank you for that Tom. Here's to lookin' ya in the eye kid.

[Barnaby]

'Given that Tumblety hated all women and seem to have strong sexual urges, it isn't unreasonable to see that he became a homosexual.'

Careful Chadwick, for the majority of homosexuals adore women, even if they do not sexually desire them.
You are promoting a myth here, and you are not alone.

This is undoubtedly true now. But was it true in 1888? Sexual behavior hasn't changed, of course, but the social context has.

[ChrisGeorge]

Don't be modest, Chris. I remember you turning up Tumblety finds before many of today's researchers were on the scene. For whatever reason, Tumblety has attracted more and better minds than any other suspect since Kosminski.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Thanks, Tom, although I will defer to Joe and Tim, as well as the contributions of Wolf Vanderlinden and others whose research on Dr T has gone far beyond my contributions. The other thing to be said though is that there is much, much more to be found on Tumblety than most other suspects. For example, with the Jewish suspect Kosminski, we are left mostly with the ambiguous references to a man named "Kosminski" whom most of us assume or deduce was insane barber Aaron Kosminski although it might well not have been since no policeman provides the suspect's first name. As you know, Martin Fido identifies a man named David Cohen as better fitting the criteria of the circumstances of the man's detention in an asylum indicated by the police notes on this Jewish suspect.

All the best

Chris

[Cap'n Jack]

'Given that Tumblety hated all women and seem to have strong sexual urges, it isn't unreasonable to see that he became a homosexual.'

Careful Chadwick, for the majority of homosexuals adore women, even if they do not sexually desire them.
You are promoting a myth here, and you are not alone.

[Tom_Wescott]

I still feel that we did the best with what we had back then and there is much other new infomation in the book (other than Tumblety), a fact that is totally ignored.

Ignored by whom? Certainly not myself, who considers these 'nuggets' the truth strength of the work. The Lardy suspect, the Batty Street Lodger, are two inclusions in the book that have sparked much discussion and debate, and there are many more besides. The Lodger/American Serial Killer is a rare example of how a 'suspect' book should be presented. It's responsible, engaging, full of new information and interpretations, and presents the case against a legitimate contemporary suspect. If every Ripper suspect book since had followed your and Gainey's example, Ripperology would be 50 years ahead of where it is now. And this is coming from someone who doesn't think Tumblety was the Ripper!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Anybody who wants to become an instant expert on Tumblety should read Tim's book. It's not a Ripper book but rather an impressive in-depth biography of one of the most unusual suspects named.

This is high praise indeed, as Wolf is hard to please. I will definitely get this book.

What the heck, how many JTR authors are on this forum? This is awesome! Someone pinch me...Cap'n Jack, where are you?

I don't think you'd like where he'd pinch you.

In the years since your book appeared, the considerable body of new information on Tumblety found by such intrepid researchers as Joe Chetcuti and Tim Riordan has changed the way we look at him

Don't be modest, Chris. I remember you turning up Tumblety finds before many of today's researchers were on the scene. For whatever reason, Tumblety has attracted more and better minds than any other suspect since Kosminski.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Chadwick]

Questions

Wolf, we shall have to agree to disagree again. I am not stupid enough to fly in the face of facts such as Conover's appalling past history casting serious doubt on his word, nor that meticulous research on Tumblety carried out over the fourteen years since we wrote our book has certainly changed aspects of the hypothetical case against him.

However, Littlechild clearly refers to Tumblety's homosexual proclivities when referring to him as a '"Sycopathia Sexualis" subject' but I cannot accept that Littlechild's words "his feelings towards women were remarkable and bitter in the extreme, a fact on record" do not indicate something more than that. This certainly seems to me to indicate more than the fact that he was merely homosexual. The words 'remarkable' and 'bitter in the extreme', seems to indicate to me that there was something more that indicated such extreme feelings and bitterness. Clearly you do not agree and there, I guess, it will have to remain.

Our 1995/96 book on Tumblety is certainly well out of date and in dire need of revision and updating. Tim Riordan's book is an excellent overview on Tumblety and I recommend it to those interested. However, he is the first to indicate that it is a biography and not a Ripper book. Wolf, you have done some extensive research and have a very longstanding interest in the case. I am sure that if you wrote a book on all this it would be well received.

For myself, I have always known that proposing a suspect for Jack the Ripper makes an author vulnerable and an easy target for criticism. I still feel that we did the best with what we had back then and there is much other new infomation in the book (other than Tumblety), a fact that is totally ignored. I shall never attempt to write another suspect oriented book and much prefer my subsequent books on the case, all of which have added much new information on the case.

I appreciate all that has been written on this thread, especially, of course, your input. It seems that views have deep roots and it is dangerous to put forth a new opinion. Admire your bravery.

Anyone who has known or knows people full of bitterness realizes they are motivated by hatred. Bitterness usually stems from an experience or experiences where someone was wounded and the person wounded refuses to forgive.

That hatred extends out beyond the person who harmed to them to include all who fit or, indeed, don't deserve to fit, what they consider part of the profile.

They view the world through jaundiced eyes.

It is human nature to stew over issues at times. A bitter person will act on their anger because they see their actions as justified. Given the opportunity, they are compelled to lash out at the object of their anger.

Bitter people are not to be trusted and even less so if you fall within their anger profile.

Given that Tumblety hated all women and seem to have strong sexual urges, it isn't unreasonable to see that he became a homosexual.

That description by Littlechild seems key to understanding the kind of man Tumblety was.

His ignominious childhood and poverty seems to have set the stage for the need for power and money.

I was curious, though, about the controversy over New York. I may have missed this in the information discussed. I gathered that Scotland Yard was not after him, but on other business. I was wondering if there was a question about him being in New York at all after leaving France and if anyone knows where he went in the years between December 1888 and 1893?

It is interesting to note that the charges against him at the time of Whitechapel murders include "force" and "arms". Are these not the MO of the Ripper? If he could manhandle men, he would have no trouble with forty year old women. Presumably, he was wielding a knife for his gentlemen victims, as well, forcing them to meet his needs. These confirmed contemporary actions are very telling.

Best,
~Chadwick

[Chadwick]

Questions

Wolf, we shall have to agree to disagree again. I am not stupid enough to fly in the face of facts such as Conover's appalling past history casting serious doubt on his word, nor that meticulous research on Tumblety carried out over the fourteen years since we wrote our book has certainly changed aspects of the hypothetical case against him.

However, Littlechild clearly refers to Tumblety's homosexual proclivities when referring to him as a '"Sycopathia Sexualis" subject' but I cannot accept that Littlechild's words "his feelings towards women were remarkable and bitter in the extreme, a fact on record" do not indicate something more than that. This certainly seems to me to indicate more than the fact that he was merely homosexual. The words 'remarkable' and 'bitter in the extreme', seems to indicate to me that there was something more that indicated such extreme feelings and bitterness. Clearly you do not agree and there, I guess, it will have to remain.

Our 1995/96 book on Tumblety is certainly well out of date and in dire need of revision and updating. Tim Riordan's book is an excellent overview on Tumblety and I recommend it to those interested. However, he is the first to indicate that it is a biography and not a Ripper book. Wolf, you have done some extensive research and have a very longstanding interest in the case. I am sure that if you wrote a book on all this it would be well received.

For myself, I have always known that proposing a suspect for Jack the Ripper makes an author vulnerable and an easy target for criticism. I still feel that we did the best with what we had back then and there is much other new infomation in the book (other than Tumblety), a fact that is totally ignored. I shall never attempt to write another suspect oriented book and much prefer my subsequent books on the case, all of which have added much new information on the case.

I appreciate all that has been written on this thread, especially, of course, your input. It seems that views have deep roots and it is dangerous to put forth a new opinion. Admire your bravery.

Anyone who has known or knows people full of bitterness realizes they are motivated by hatred. Bitterness usually stems from an experience or experiences where someone was wounded and the person wounded refuses to forgive.

That hatred extends out beyond the person who harmed to them to include all who fit or, indeed, don't deserve to fit, what they consider part of the profile.

They view the world through jaundiced eyes.

It is human nature to stew over issues at times. A bitter person will act on their anger because they see their actions as justified. Given the opportunity, they are compelled to lash out at the object of their anger.

Bitter people are not to be trusted and even less so if you fall within their anger profile.

Given that Tumblety hated all women and seem to have strong sexual urges, it isn't unreasonable to see that he became a homosexual.

That description by Littlechild seems key to understanding the kind of man Tumblety was.

His ignominious childhood and poverty seems to have set the stage for the need for power and money.

I was curious, though, about the controversy over New York. I gathered that Scotland Yard was not after him, but on other business. I was wondering if there was a question about him being in New York at all after leaving France and if anyone knows where he went in the years between December 1888 and 1893?

It is interesting to note that the charges against him at the time of Whitechapel murders include "force" and "arms". Are these not the MO of the Ripper? If he could manhandle men, he would have no trouble with forty year old women. Presumably, he was wielding a knife for his gentlemen victims, as well, forcing them to meet his needs. These confirmed contemporary actions are very telling.

Best,
~Chadwick