Critiquing arguments against Tumblety, or Francis the Ripper

[ChrisGeorge]

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.

Hello Stewart

At the risk of sounding like a toady, when your book appeared in 1995 you and your co-author, Paul Gainey, presented the world with a new and startling suspect, and a candidate that was most welcome, given that for the most part the field had got itself into a rut in terms of pondering the implications of Macnaghten and Anderson's suspects, the missing police files, and so on.

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, but he still remains one of the most intriguing named suspects for having been the bloody murderer of Whitechapel.

Best regards

Chris George

[mklhawley]

It is intriguing to take into account how a Victorian Age Londoner would think and that makes complete sense. Even so, it seems more logical that “bitter in the extreme” refers to hating women as opposed to explaining Tumblety’s lifestyle change.

Mike

[Stewart P Evans]

Agree To Disagree

...
As I wrote, the term “woman hater” was used at the time of the Whitechapel Murders, and for many years before, to indicate homosexuality and not actual feelings of loathing or murderous intentions towards women. Homosexuality was little understood at the time and a “hatred for women” was as good an explanation as any to the Victorian layman. So yes, I believe the comments merely refer to Tumblety’s homosexuality.
...
As to Littlechild’s comment to Sims, he had started the sentence quoted above by stating that Tumblety was a “Sycopathia Sexualis subject,” i.e. that he was an homosexual, and went on to say, basically, that he wasn’t a shrinking violet about it. And Tumblety’s homosexuality was a “fact on record” and it was a record in Britain apparently dating back to 1873.
...[/I]
Wolf.

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.

[mklhawley]

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.

Wolf.

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

Mike

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

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.

Wolf.

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Hi Stewart.

As regards the comments in the post above about Dunham's article, I see that Carman Cumming has made comments that do not totally agree with it, and this despite the fact that he does expose Dunham's true character. He states, "So is his description of Dr. Tumblety a total fabrication? Not necessarily. Dunham often used a base of reality for his best inventions, and in the Tumblety case there are indeed elements of truth. For instance, Dunham claimed he was a very young army colonel when Tumblety entertained him at his 'tasteful' quarters in Washington and showed off his cases of female body parts. The fact is that Dunham was indeed in Washington at the time he mentioned, shortly after the 1861 First Battle of Bull Run, as self-proclaimed 'colonel' of a New York regiment. Dunham's 'Cameron Legion' eventually collapsed and was probably a fraud from the start."
SPE

Interesting. You’ve obviously taken the above from Carman Cumming’s article in Ripperologist e-zine that was also reprinted in the book Ripperology, the Best of Ripperologist Magazine where I see he also wrote:

“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.”

Cumming, as you may know, is neither a Tumblety nor Whitechapel Murder expert and he ends his article with these wise words:

“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 available evidence.”

Much of this had already been done before Cumming’s article appeared and, as I wrote above, proved to be a pack of lies.

For example, Cummings writes “The fact is that Dunham was indeed in Washington at the time he mentioned, shortly after the 1861 First Battle of Bull Run, as self-proclaimed 'colonel' of a New York regiment.” This is not in doubt, but as I wrote above, “Tumblety was still in New York at the time Dunham says he first met him in Washington (July, 1861) and didn’t move to the city until November, 1861.”

Nothing Dunham wrote about Tumblety appears to be the truth and quoting from Cumming, who doesn’t have all the facts, isn’t going to change that.

Wolf.

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Question. According to a document found by Archaic, The Western Druggist, Dec 1888, it states that, “The man [Tumblety] was simply arrested for being a known woman-hater”. The monthly periodical must have been written in Nov 1888 or early Dec 1888. In your published works, you stated that the “Colonel” Dunham interview was later in Dec 1888. Would this be evidence that this woman-hater comment did not originate with Dunham, and/or the comment merely refers to a homosexual (thus irrelevant)?
Mike.

Fine, but we still have Littlechild's statement regarding Tumblety's feelings towards women - "...but his feelings towards women were remarkable and bitter in the extreme, a fact on record."
SPE

I’d like to address both these comments as one, if I may.

As I wrote, the term “woman hater” was used at the time of the Whitechapel Murders, and for many years before, to indicate homosexuality and not actual feelings of loathing or murderous intentions towards women. Homosexuality was little understood at the time and a “hatred for women” was as good an explanation as any to the Victorian layman. So yes, I believe the comments merely refer to Tumblety’s homosexuality.

The sentence in question found in the Western Druggist (December, 1888) that “The man was arrested simply because he was known as a woman-hater…” deals, in my mind, not with Tumblety’s arrest in connection with the murders but rather with the second part of the news reports that hit North America: that Tumblety was arrested for homosexual acts. As the New York World stated “The police could not hold him on suspicion of the Whitechapel crimes, but he will be committed for trial at the Central Criminal Court under the special law passed soon after the Modern Babylon exposures.” (New York World, 17 November, 1888).

As to Littlechild’s comment to Sims, he had started the sentence quoted above by stating that Tumblety was a “Sycopathia Sexualis subject,” i.e. that he was an homosexual, and went on to say, basically, that he wasn’t a shrinking violet about it. And Tumblety’s homosexuality was a “fact on record” and it was a record in Britain apparently dating back to 1873.

The Victorian attitude of Tumblety as an homosexual, and therefore a viable Whitechapel Murder suspect, is summed up in the interview with William Pinkerton found in the Chicago Inter Ocean, 20 November, 1888:

“And what did people who came in contact with the doctor think of his general character?”
“People familiar with the history of the man always talked of him as a brute, and as brutal in his actions. He was known as a thorough woman-hater and as a man who never associated with or mixed with women of any kind….”
“And what do you think are the probabilities of his being the man who committed the Whitechapel murders – murders committed, apparently, without any object in view? Do you consider that the Doctor was insane?”
“Yes, I do. I think a man guilty of such practices as those I have referred to (homosexuality) must be insane; and Dr. Hammond – Surgeon General Hammond – some time ago, when asked as to whether or not he thought that the Whitechapel murderer was an insane man, said that when the murderer of those women was discovered he would undoubtedly be found to be a woman-hater and a man guilty of the same practices (homosexuality) which I have described, and Twombley, or Tumblety, as being guilty of, and that such men were crazy and as likely as not to murder women.”

Wolf.

[Tom_Wescott]

My unsolicited advice is loose the lower-case little boys name and re-register as Tim Riordan. I'd buy a book from him. I'd buy a collie from the former.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[timothy]

Thanks - I have been waiting for a review or two to come out before pushing it. It was a fun book to write and I hope it is fun to read. The Doctor is always interesting

Tim

[Tom_Wescott]

Oh, I know Tim Riordan. Of course! Okay, so you didn't just crawl out of the woodwork with a book. Ha ha. Congrats on that. Is it true that once you publish a book, Stewart Evans let's you make eye contact with him?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[timothy]

The name of the book is "Prince of Quacks" and my name is Tim Riordan

[Tom_Wescott]

What's your last name, Timothy?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[timothy]

I am afraid I am a little biased as I wrote it.

[Tom_Wescott]

I wasn't aware that was out. Is it any good? I mean a volume on Tumblety in regards to the Ripper case.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[timothy]

I'd just like to say that a brand new volume on Tumblety is already available - Prince of Quacks - which was published in October of last year.

Best,

Tim