Critiquing arguments against Tumblety, or Francis the Ripper

[Cap'n Jack]

No mike, you are in dire need of a peer, and when you find one, do me a favour, jump off the end. I can't stand snobs.

[perrymason]

Cap'n Jack,

You are in desparate need of a hug.

Mike

I believe the suggestion is that perhaps you were hugged too tightly as a child, and now seek to squirm and struggle when confronted with issues containing the human condition and raw emotions.

The Captain sails a tight ship....dont imagine that anything you have said was missed before any rebuttal was proffered.

Best regards

[Archaic]

The Captain sails a tight ship....

So I've heard.

But drunken boating is fraught with danger...

Life-vests are recommended.


Cheers, Mike; I couldn't resist.

Best regards, Archaic

[mklhawley]

I believe the suggestion is that perhaps you were hugged too tightly as a child, and now seek to squirm and struggle when confronted with issues containing the human condition and raw emotions.

The Captain sails a tight ship....dont imagine that anything you have said was missed before any rebuttal was proffered.

Best regards

Wow, now I really feel unloved. But, back to a serious ripperology question I had for Simon. I really would like a reply, because I believe it is any issue.

Thanks,

Mike

[mklhawley]

Wow, now I really feel unloved. But, back to a serious ripperology question I had for Simon. I really would like a reply, because I believe it is any issue.

Thanks,

Mike

I"m sorry for the typo..."I believe it is AN issue"

[Archaic]

May 1862: Colonel Dunham "Suspected" In N.Y. Times

Here's a little article about Colonel Dunham that was published in the New York Times on May 27, 1862.

It's a report from Louisville, Kentucky. Louisville was a strategically important Southern city held by Union forces and was used as a sort of "hub" for planning, organizing & supplying various Union military campaigns.

I don't think I have ever heard of an officer being accused of "squinting at treason" before.

What's the consensus on this man?

Is there one?

Best regards, Archaic

[perrymason]

Ami I correct in my belief that the single reference to Dr Tumblety in relation to any Whitechapel Murderer theory by anyone connected directly with the investigations from either the Met or City Police is the Littlechild letter?

Serious question.

Best regards

[Archaic]

Hi, Mike.

That's a very good question.
I don't think any of the newspaper & journal articles ever name their sources.

Best regards, Archaic

[Natalie Severn]

But you see Mike,the great big worry for The Times Newspaper and Robert Anderson in October 1888 was
a] The possibility of The Times being sued for hundreds of thousands of pounds by the testimony of Michael Davitt at the Special Commission on Parnell which opened in October 1888 and the worry for Sir Robert Anderson that quite apart from it revealing that it was he, Robert Anderson-- who should have been running the 1888 "Ripper Investigation" that October --Anderson was in point of fact, the very man who had penned half the pesky letters that had demonised Parnell and begun the process of destroying Parnell ,thereby defeating Home Rule and getting rid of that nuisance of a "pro Home Rule" Prime Minister Gladstone in a hat trick and all on the very day Lord Salisbury"s nephew ,Arthur Balfour became Irish Secretary on 7th March 1887. Trouble was it wasnt only Robert Anderson"s articles criminalising Parnell that might come to light [which didnt happen until much later] but Pigott"s role in having forged letters supposedly written by Parnell [which did come to light whereby Pigott promptly topped himself] ....but oh my! Pandora"s box might really fly open and reveal all!

Which,ofcourse,was why both Robert Anderson and the Times forger Richard Pigott had both raced over to Switzerland in September1888 -just after the death of Polly Nichols ,hoping against hope one way or another that the exiled Fenian plotter ,Eugene Davis ,now based in Switzerland, would testify against Parnell at the Special Commission for £100! But he refused, point blank and very indignant we are told on being asked to do such a thing!
So Richard Pigott and Robert Anderson move on----to Paris , first week of October 1888 and where several British agents and buddies are also based .Anderson,despite pleas from Home Secretary Matthews to return and attend to the "Ripper Investigation" decided to stay on a little longer in Paris on "sick leave "---

By the time they returned to London ,Mary Kelly and Pigott were doomed.Pigott killed himself when his forger role came to light a couple of months later at the Special Commission.Mary Kelly died at the hands of an unknown assassin. Her death being nothing whatsoever to do with any of this ,in in my own view, but providing a hugely diverting news story from The Times scandal of 1888 and Robert Anderson"s carefully crafted articles in The Times newspaper,-now such a huge potential embarrassment --a denoument of the "Parnell and Crime" scandal.

And so it moved to New York...........

With the well known Fenian sympathiser "Tumblety", very conveniently crossing the pond on jumped bail after being arrested for murder foul and acts of gross decency what better story for the New York based British agent Frank Millen, to be feeding another of his employers at the "New York Times" where he was a paid correspondent? Why,"The Ripper hunt comes to America-"--in the shape of the American Irishman and quack "Tumblety"!
Poor old Millen,he too was dead of a "heart attack" within 6 months!

[Cap'n Jack]

What strikes me, and forcefully so, is that the moment one attempts to empower a subject here with the hard facts, then along comes a gang of wannabe theorists who destabilise that 'issue' with personalisation. In that they attempt to make it 'them' and 'us', just so in this issue where the deliberate attempt has been made to pit my knowledge and erudation against that of SPE's, and SPE himself is guilty on that score, as he always takes such an issue personally, even when the effort to empower the subject is made in a factual and impersonal manner.
I want to get to the devil in the detail, and to the devil with reputation, repute and friendship, that time is past, the time is now to devil the detail, and if your ego or emotion is not fit for purpose, then go and subject yourself to a long walk with your peers, for there are no peers, just folks with vested and egoistic interest, people who would protect what they perceive they own.
That time is past.
And I would rather choke on dirt then jump on some bandwagon that perceives a letter as having Irish influence because some deranged halfwit can't tell a sore from a sire.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mike,

Firstly, whose word are you accepting that Tumblety was ever arrested as a Jack the Ripper suspect?

"Now, to suggest the Scotland Yard official not hanging out in NYC is clear evidence that Tumblety was lesser of a suspect for the Whitechapel murders does not fit."

How doesn't it fit? Or is this just the old "absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence" mantra so often employed when people are on a hiding to nothing discussing God and other intangibles?

"I do see them coming to NYC to demonstrate to the NYC authorities that this guy deserves some attention."

But they didn't. Tumblety wasn't on their radar. They came to America on more important business. The cop who arrived on 6th December headed straight for Kansas. Why would he trail Tumblety all the way to New York if you're right in saying, "I don’t think following him in the streets of NYC would do much to further their investigation" and "How could a Scotland Yard official benefit from following Tumblety in the streets of NYC? What evidence could be gathered"?

When you state that the issue I discussed is "irrelevant to Tumblety’s suspect status" it becomes obvious that you really don't have anything substantial to offer, and regarding other people rejecting Tumblety on the grounds of "height, age, size of mustache, etc." I'd say they're absolutely right to do so. Otherwise they would be flying in the face of logic and all those right or wrong police reports which describe completely different people.

By the way, my evidence to suggest that the From Hell letter is bogus is based on a careful reading of the way in which the financially-strapped WVC went mob-handed to Fleet Street before going to the police.

Please let me know if you find anything substantive on Tumblety.

Regards,

Simon

[Simon Wood]

Hey Norma,

The two men reportedly last seen with MJK were Mister Blotchy and Mister Astrakhan.

Here's a description of someone—

"Age 50 to 55, 5' 8", red face, blotchy as from excessive drinking—large nose—hair (wavy) brown, turning grey, moustache white, no whiskers. Very slight build, dressed—dark clothes, dark overcoat with astrakhan collar and cuffs—hard felt hat. Wears sword scarf pin—has Irish harp and shamrock on locket and watch chain."

Frank Millen.

Not only did Millen die of a heart attack in New York within six months. Six months after he died Thomas Clarke Luby, co-founder of the Irish Revolutionary Brotherhood, wrote to John O'Leary, editor of The Irish People, saying that Millen's body had been secretly disinterred and reburied by the freemasons.

You couldn't make this stuff up.

Regards,

Simon

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

I see that Natalie has touched on this but I thought I would add to it.

The term “woman hater” means a homosexual; it does not mean that Tumblety, or anyone else described with the term, actually, literally, hated women and wanted to kill them. The term is fairly old. For example there is a broadsheet ballad dated 1707 titled “The Women-Hater’s Lamentation” which tells of the arrest in London of a group of gay men (three or four of whom killed themselves in prison over the disgrace of being caught). The term lasted into the twentieth century as exampled by a report in the Washington Post dated 1 July, 1906, describing the murder of Archibald Wakely in London. Wakely was a wealthy artist and homosexual who was described as “…about forty, and unmarried. In fact, he was known as a woman hater, and preferred the society of young men.”

The other thing I wanted to talk about is Dunham’s article in the New York World. I have noticed that although Dunham’s character is sometimes mentioned, i.e. that he was a conman, liar and convicted perjurer, there seems, for some reason, to be an unwillingness to state that the article was, in fact, a pack of lies. The suggestion seems to be that although he was a liar that doesn’t necessarily mean he was lying here and therefore the information given by Dunham – that Tumblety owned a collection of uteri, or was married to a woman who turned out to be a prostitute – might still be correct.

Totally ignored, however, is the fact that Dunham’s recollections are absolutely wrong:
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. Meanwhile Dunham wasn’t in Washington at this time but in Baltimore attempting to gain a commission in the Mexican Army. This was because Dunham wasn’t a Colonel in the Union Army and his talk about hanging around Washington with his Lieutenant-colonel on “official business” was a lie.
Tumblety didn’t live and have his office in a boarding house on H Street (where Dunham claims he was shown the uteri collection). He stayed in the Willard Hotel, the grandest hotel Washington had to offer, and his office was, and always had been, in Washington Buildings some blocks away.
The circumstances surrounding Tumblety’s libel suit against the Canterbury Music Hall, as stated by Dunham, are wrong and, given what actually did transpire, must have been made up by Dunham.

AP.

I discovered Inspector Andrew's whereabouts at that crucial time about two years ago, for he gave an interview to the press, or better said a member of the Canadian police gave an interview on his behalf. I do believe I worked it out that he was a 5 hour railway journey away from NYC the whole time he was in Canada; and the shipping news confirms that he could not have used NYC as a returning port.
So I do not believe Wolf Vanderline's (sic) information is privy at all, unless of course he has found something that I missed.

Yes, I found something that you missed (but what else is new).

Archaic.

As I stated, Dunham wasn’t a Colonel, or any other rank, in the Union, or any, Army during the Civil War.

Wolf.

[mklhawley]

I see that Natalie has touched on this but I thought I would add to it.

The term “woman hater” means a homosexual; it does not mean that Tumblety, or anyone else described with the term, actually, literally, hated women and wanted to kill them. The term is fairly old. For example there is a broadsheet ballad dated 1707 titled “The Women-Hater’s Lamentation” which tells of the arrest in London of a group of gay men (three or four of whom killed themselves in prison over the disgrace of being caught). The term lasted into the twentieth century as exampled by a report in the Washington Post dated 1 July, 1906, describing the murder of Archibald Wakely in London. Wakely was a wealthy artist and homosexual who was described as “…about forty, and unmarried. In fact, he was known as a woman hater, and preferred the society of young men.”

The other thing I wanted to talk about is Dunham’s article in the New York World. I have noticed that although Dunham’s character is sometimes mentioned, i.e. that he was a conman, liar and convicted perjurer, there seems, for some reason, to be an unwillingness to state that the article was, in fact, a pack of lies. The suggestion seems to be that although he was a liar that doesn’t necessarily mean he was lying here and therefore the information given by Dunham – that Tumblety owned a collection of uteri, or was married to a woman who turned out to be a prostitute – might still be correct.

Totally ignored, however, is the fact that Dunham’s recollections are absolutely wrong:
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. Meanwhile Dunham wasn’t in Washington at this time but in Baltimore attempting to gain a commission in the Mexican Army. This was because Dunham wasn’t a Colonel in the Union Army and his talk about hanging around Washington with his Lieutenant-colonel on “official business” was a lie.
Tumblety didn’t live and have his office in a boarding house on H Street (where Dunham claims he was shown the uteri collection). He stayed in the Willard Hotel, the grandest hotel Washington had to offer, and his office was, and always had been, in Washington Buildings some blocks away.
The circumstances surrounding Tumblety’s libel suit against the Canterbury Music Hall, as stated by Dunham, are wrong and, given what actually did transpire, must have been made up by Dunham.

AP.



Yes, I found something that you missed (but what else is new).

Archaic.

As I stated, Dunham wasn’t a Colonel, or any other rank, in the Union, or any, Army during the Civil War.

Wolf.

Simon,

Your reply was excellent.

Wolf,

I'm waiting for a book from you. Any on the horizon?

Mike

[Simon Wood]

Hi Wolf,

Good to have you back.

It also turns out that the Captain Streeter story was economical with the truth.

Of which, more later.

Regards,

Simon