Critiquing arguments against Tumblety, or Francis the Ripper

[corey123]

Hello Banana,Jack,Wolf, all.

I am the one who proposed that Jack could be a Narcissistic serial killer. I do agree that Dr.t COULD have been one. I find some problems with this. First of all, as you say Tumblerty was rich in 1888, my assesment that Jack was a narcissist relies on how an outside stimulous would ignight his rage.

Many a senerio I can formulate with Narcissism. He could have lacked tha narcissistic supply, the attention, the noterioty he wanted. He could have grown up with a prostitute mother who was devoid of attention, thus becoming a social, you guys know the rest of that serial story. Many many sernerios can be formed, and they all fit the victimology, methodology, and overal profile of Jack(my personal profile so this is up to debate).

However, Tumblerty is prosperous, so we can eliminate the first senerio. He perfectly well got all the noterioty he wanted. All the money, the attention, the fame. Such as a Herb doctor as him self could have. I know nothing of his child hood so that,well doesnt cross out, but postpones senerio two.

So truly, I believe if we looked at more of his behavior than his actions, we could asses whether he is a Narcissist. But as to him being the killer, in my mind thats a long shot.

Mike(aka banana) and I speak regularly, he knows his stuff. He,like me, wants only the truth to this. we both agree on that the killer was narcissistic. But when we get to Dr.T we seperate. I believe the killer was heterosexual, Dr.T was homosexual. He would most likely pick male victims. The C5 were perfect examples of sexual homicide. the killer would attack areas of his attraction(eg. The vagina, breast, face) and this alos points to a heterosexual killer.

I know some of tumblerty but not enough to dismiss him. Interesting man though.

Yours truly

[mklhawley]

You see, Mike, you tread a well trodden path, in that you totally ignore the comments I have made, backed up by factual evidence, that Tumblety was a 'womaniser' of some renown in his youth; rather than a 'woman hater' who collected bits and pieces from the end of your peer; you also ignore, just like the others the manslaughter charge that Tumblety faced in the 1870's in England which would have given him the police record of which you and many others speak; you also ignore the fact that he was a very wealthy man in 1888 who needed no help in securing a legal bond or bail; you also ignore the fact that the bills against him in 1888 contained no reference to violence but were worded according to the statues of the day; you also ignore the fact that the British Government enabled its Consul in the USA to free him of charges laid against him by a US citizen, because he was a British citizen, and not Irish; you also ignore the fact that Tumblety was probably the most prominent and well publicised US citizen in the UK in 1888, but he fails to appear in any document relevant to the Whitechapel Murders until a turgid quarter century later when some old fool, who has spent half his life fitting up Americans like Thaw without any solid or factual reference for being gay - other than he was being paid by Pinko to do so - and then you start talking to me about peers?
**** you, banana.

Cap'n Jack,

Now that's meat. I would love to know more about the womaniser thing. I did read some US newspaper articles referring to that, but it seemed as though it came from the reporter. What I mean is, he saw a handsome Tumblety and a bunch of younger ladies excited about it. Also, my suggestion that Tumblety did everything for financial gain may suggest he was just working his potential customers.

Sincerely,

Banana

[Cap'n Jack]

You see, Mike, you tread a well trodden path, in that you totally ignore the comments I have made, backed up by factual evidence, that Tumblety was a 'womaniser' of some renown in his youth; rather than a 'woman hater' who collected bits and pieces from the end of your peer; you also ignore, just like the others the manslaughter charge that Tumblety faced in the 1870's in England which would have given him the police record of which you and many others speak; you also ignore the fact that he was a very wealthy man in 1888 who needed no help in securing a legal bond or bail; you also ignore the fact that the bills against him in 1888 contained no reference to violence but were worded according to the statues of the day; you also ignore the fact that the British Government enabled its Consul in the USA to free him of charges laid against him by a US citizen, because he was a British citizen, and not Irish; you also ignore the fact that Tumblety was probably the most prominent and well publicised US citizen in the UK in 1888, but he fails to appear in any document relevant to the Whitechapel Murders until a turgid quarter century later when some old fool, who has spent half his life fitting up Americans like Thaw without any solid or factual reference for being gay - other than he was being paid by Pinko to do so - and then you start talking to me about peers?
**** you, banana.

[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.

Wolf,

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)?

Sincerely,

Mike

[Cap'n Jack]

Heya Wolf, you found something that I missed?
It must have been a bus.
Nah, only joshing ya, if you have then my congratulations, and more power to your elbow.

[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

[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

[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.

[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

[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

[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.

[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!

[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

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]

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