Tweet
Greetings all,
My goal in this thread is not necessarily to prove Francis Tumblety was Jack the Ripper, but to demonstrate he should still be considered a serious JTR suspect by critiquing the arguments against him, especially in light of some new revelations (at least to me). I am the first to admit a personal bias for Tumblety because of my proximity and recent visitation to his Rochester, NY, gravesite, but this is not what convinced me. This can be attributed to the findings of Stewart Evans and Paul Gainey, the forensic handwriting analysis of expert, Michelle Dresbold (I did not take into account her personality profiling, or graphology) and her Irish descent argument, details in Tumblety’s interview just two months after the murders, and even the weakness of arguments rejecting him as a viable candidate for JTR. After reviewing the arguments against Tumblety on the various threads, I am somewhat baffled. In my opinion, some (not all) of the arguments are weak. Of course, I could be completely wrong. The beauty of scientific peer review is that it effectively filters out pride, personal bias, cherry picking of evidence, and convoluted logic. My desire is for the JTR peer review process within this forum to do just that, so please “rip” my critique apart (excuse the pun) if you can. Please be ruthless (well, maybe not ad hominem attacks; I’m sensitive).
Argument 1: Tumblety was too much of a flamboyant fame-seeking publicity hound to be JTR. He would ultimately have wanted to take credit for being the world’s famous serial killer.
Even if he was a publicity hound, it’s quite common for people to lead two separate lives (an acceptable public life and a seedy private life). We know Tumblety actually did lead two separate lives because of his arrest for having multiple homosexual Whitechapel encounters. Yet, I believe this is a serious misconception. Many see him as a harmless eccentric guy with the motivation to fit in with the rich and famous. On the contrary, Tumblety’s actions suggest he was the poster child for an aggressive narcissist. After Corey123 had made convincing arguments to show JTR was the worst kind of narcissist, it hit me that Tumblety shared some of these traits. Notice the Hare Psychopathy checklist for an aggressive narcissist: Glibness/superficial charm, Grandiose sense of self-worth, Pathological lying, Cunning/manipulative, Lack of remorse or guilt, Shallow affect (expressing emotions deceptively), Callous/lack of empathy, Failure to accept responsibility for own actions. Each one is classic Tumblety. His flamboyance was merely a tool for manipulation in order to attain his true desire: personal financial gain. He was a narcissistic scam artist employing effective sales and marketing techniques in order to manipulate a gullible public. In an era of slow mass communication, Tumblety would enter a new city in full glamour as if he were on a parade. There are numerous newspaper articles discussing this and even discussing the wealth he acquired. Even his parties were attempts to gain credibility with the more fortunate crowds in order to reinforce his money making practice. Once the public finally learned about his true background from better-informed authorities or once his patients started getting sick and even dying (evidence of no remorse), he merely pulled up his stakes and took his freshly earned money and business to a new city (or country).
Argument 2: Tumblety was nearly 6’ tall and had a huge mustache, so he would have been too conspicuous in the Whitechapel streets.
If Tumblety were JTR, do you really think it would be impossible for him to be inconspicuous? He certainly felt inconspicuous enough to pursue his homosexual activities with multiple young men in the Whitechapel district in November 1888 when authorities were at the height of combing the streets for JTR.
Keep in mind; the majestic tiger with its massive body and flamboyant colors has an MO of stealth and stalking, not unlike Jack the Ripper. Why are 500 – 800 pound brightly colored tigers so good at surprising their prey? They effectively use the environment. According to Donald Rumbelow, the streets of Whitechapel were very dark with multiple nooks and crannies. Although a picture of Tumblety has his mustache displayed out, the photograph of him in uniform has his mustache following the contour of his face and neck. This could easily fit into a cloak. A 5 foot 11 inch man is no different than a 5 foot 8-inch man at night and in the shadows, especially if he dresses down. Even in Tumblety’s interview in January 1889, he admits to dressing inconspicuously, “I was not dressed in a way to attract attention…”
Argument 3: Tumblety is too old to be a credible JTR suspect.
Remember, Tumblety was arrested twice for violent homosexual encounters in November 1888 with no less than four men. I’m sure the authorities who arrested him at the time for aggressive illegal sexual activities would not consider him too old to handle middle-aged female prostitutes (one at a time). Tumblety had certainly enough mojo to pursue multiple young men while in his fifties. Newspapers continued to characterize him as a powerfully built man. Keep in mind; the oldest known serial killer was a full 20 years older than Tumblety was at the time of the Whitechapel murders. It is also interesting to note that the JTR victims were in their forties; easier targets than younger prostitutes. Didn’t the youthful Ted Bundy likewise hunt youthful victims, so it is not out of the question that an older JTR would prefer older prostitutes?
Argument 4: There is no concrete evidence that Scotland Yard considered Tumblety a serious suspect.
To me, Evans & Gainey’s arguments are convincing enough to answer this argument, but even if you do not, absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence. This is especially true with such a cold case as JTR where concrete physical evidence is all but absent. According to Donald Rumbelow, Scotland Yard officials were directed to exclude the press on the JTR investigation entirely. In view of this, how can one conclude Tumblety’d JTR suspect status by what Scotland Yard said or what they told the press? No wonder the UK press was so silent about Tumblety. With this kind of policy, in order to discover their true motives, one should not consider what Scotland Yard said but consider what they did. They certainly followed Tumblety to the U.S., and in following known Scotland Yard policy, claimed he was not being investigated for the Whitechapel murders.
Tumblety himself admitted to a reporter in January 1889 that Whitechapel authorities not only arrested him for the Whitechapel murders but also charged him with the murders. Tumblety stated, “I happened to be there when these Whitechapel murders…I was not dressed in a way to attract attention… I had simply been guilty of wearing a slouch hat, and for that I was charged with a series of the most horrible crimes ever recorded.” I believe it is foolhardy to reject Tumblety’s truthfulness in this particular part of the interview. He had nothing to gain by admitting to this, especially in light of his chosen profession. Tumblety would be more convincing to begin with facts already known to the public (being arrested and charged in connection with his type of hat), and then twist the story from there into a plausible yet deceptive story.
Interestingly, Tumblety claimed he was going to prepare a pamphlet to refute all charges against him, which never happened. This is reminiscent of what OJ Simpson claimed and then failed to do (recall that he claimed he was going to search tirelessly for the true killers on Nicole Brown Simpson once he was found innocent).
Argument 5: Tumblety does not fit the eyewitness testimonies.
Point one is that it certainly could be true that eyewitnesses were describing the wrong man, just as inspector Aberline suggested. Point two brings up a second revelation, which requires a change in Jack the Ripper’s MO. If the From Hell letter did come from JTR, recall how he signed it, “Catch me when you can.” This points to a killer proud of how he can mutilate a body on the public streets and then easily elude authorities. Not only does he have power over these women, he had power over a frightened public and a baffled police force. Would it not be more effective for a serial killer to focus just as much upon the set up to the attack as the attack itself? If I were JTR, I would certainly draw less attention to myself by not being seen with the prostitute in public at all. I would leisurely follow a selected prostitute on the crowded Whitechapel streets, wait for a John to solicit her, follow the two of them to an obviously private place, watch their sexual encounter, ensure no one else was around, and then once the John left the area, approach the prostitute for the attack whether it be in an ally, a court, or in an apartment. This would conveniently ensure false eyewitness testimony as an effective method of eluding the authorities in the future. While the authorities are looking for a younger, shorter, foreign guy, the taller, older JTR would be better able to roam the streets.
If JTR’s MO was to use a John to solicit his victim, then this opens up the possibility that Tumblety may have murdered Carrie Brown in New York City on April 23/24, 1891, as well. The eyewitness testimony may merely be describing the John and not the killer. Why I bring this up again is because of the amazing coincidence that not only was he in Whitechapel during murders, his residence was walking distance to Carrie Brown’s murder site in 1891 (another ripper-style murder)!
Some consider a stumbling block for Tumblety being Brown’s murderer is the robbery of him in Hot Springs, Arkansas, on “Friday night” (according to The Brooklyn Eagle), which would make it April 17. This is six full days prior to Brown’s murder, and a train ride back home to NYC was only a 2- or 3-day ride. It doesn’t seem too out of the question for Tumblety to quickly come back to NYC to get more cash, since he lost it all in Hot Springs. He could even have been so irritated at losing his precious hard-earned cash that this narcissist had to relieve himself by settling some scores with NYC authorities claiming JTR could never elude them (OK, this one is stretch, but hey, I’m trying to think out of the box).
Argument 6: There is no direct evidence of Tumblety being a violent woman hater and collector of uterus specimens.
To elaborate, the eyewitness testimony of Colonel Dunham is the only direct eyewitness evidence that Tumblety had an extensive collection of uterus specimens and that he was also a woman hater. Since Dunham was a known liar and cheat, these two claims are now suspect, and should not be used. Tumblety no longer has a motive for the JTR killings, thus he is no longer a viable suspect.
This argument impresses me, but I have a few points. I do agree that Colonel Dunham spun a tail about Tumblety in December 1888 for personal reasons, especially since Tumblety was in all of the U.S. papers at the time as a major Ripper suspect. I do not agree, however, to entirely reject these two claims. In order for Dunham to get the biggest public reaction from this deceptive interview, why not embellish upon what Tumblety has previously been accused of. My contention is that the two claims, especially the woman hater claim, should not be ignored since Scotland Yard mostly likely considered them. Keep in mind; Littlechild in his letter stated, “…but his feelings towards women were remarkable and bitter in the extreme, a fact on record.”
Regardless, I believe this argument is missing the point. The argument is challenging a possible motive for Tumblety to murder. Being a woman-hater is only one motive that fits a narcissistic Tumblety. According to the experts, the following are general motives for serial killers: visionary (voices told me to do it), mission-oriented (hate men, women, prostitutes, etc.), hedonistic (lust, for the thrill, for comfort/profit), and power. Apparently, all known serial killers have one thing in common, child abuse and/or neglect. Remember, Tumblety was selling pornographic material on the locks as a youth. This type of upbringing screams of parental neglect and even possible physical/sexual abuse.
There is one more pattern with the ripper victims that I have not yet seen presented, but Cris Scott’s 9/12/08 thread (1857 Arrest in Montreal – abortion medicine) just might have revealed another connection to Tumblety. When detective Simard attempted to set Tumblety up in order to arrest him for illegal practices in Montreal, Canada in 1857, the detective asked if he had any remedies to procure a miscarriage for a young girl. Tumblety responded by asking if the intended patient was Protestant or Catholic. Tumblety agreed to assist when he found out she was Protestant. Tumblety was known to be Catholic, so it seems he had one set of scruples. He did not cross a line in assisting a Catholic female to lose her immortal soul. If Tumblety were JTR, then maybe this line is present in the ripper victims. As far as I can tell, all of the victims were Protestant. If one was Catholic, then this just might be able to refute Tumblety as a candidate. Can anyone help on this?
Sincerely,
Mike
My goal in this thread is not necessarily to prove Francis Tumblety was Jack the Ripper, but to demonstrate he should still be considered a serious JTR suspect by critiquing the arguments against him, especially in light of some new revelations (at least to me). I am the first to admit a personal bias for Tumblety because of my proximity and recent visitation to his Rochester, NY, gravesite, but this is not what convinced me. This can be attributed to the findings of Stewart Evans and Paul Gainey, the forensic handwriting analysis of expert, Michelle Dresbold (I did not take into account her personality profiling, or graphology) and her Irish descent argument, details in Tumblety’s interview just two months after the murders, and even the weakness of arguments rejecting him as a viable candidate for JTR. After reviewing the arguments against Tumblety on the various threads, I am somewhat baffled. In my opinion, some (not all) of the arguments are weak. Of course, I could be completely wrong. The beauty of scientific peer review is that it effectively filters out pride, personal bias, cherry picking of evidence, and convoluted logic. My desire is for the JTR peer review process within this forum to do just that, so please “rip” my critique apart (excuse the pun) if you can. Please be ruthless (well, maybe not ad hominem attacks; I’m sensitive).
Argument 1: Tumblety was too much of a flamboyant fame-seeking publicity hound to be JTR. He would ultimately have wanted to take credit for being the world’s famous serial killer.
Even if he was a publicity hound, it’s quite common for people to lead two separate lives (an acceptable public life and a seedy private life). We know Tumblety actually did lead two separate lives because of his arrest for having multiple homosexual Whitechapel encounters. Yet, I believe this is a serious misconception. Many see him as a harmless eccentric guy with the motivation to fit in with the rich and famous. On the contrary, Tumblety’s actions suggest he was the poster child for an aggressive narcissist. After Corey123 had made convincing arguments to show JTR was the worst kind of narcissist, it hit me that Tumblety shared some of these traits. Notice the Hare Psychopathy checklist for an aggressive narcissist: Glibness/superficial charm, Grandiose sense of self-worth, Pathological lying, Cunning/manipulative, Lack of remorse or guilt, Shallow affect (expressing emotions deceptively), Callous/lack of empathy, Failure to accept responsibility for own actions. Each one is classic Tumblety. His flamboyance was merely a tool for manipulation in order to attain his true desire: personal financial gain. He was a narcissistic scam artist employing effective sales and marketing techniques in order to manipulate a gullible public. In an era of slow mass communication, Tumblety would enter a new city in full glamour as if he were on a parade. There are numerous newspaper articles discussing this and even discussing the wealth he acquired. Even his parties were attempts to gain credibility with the more fortunate crowds in order to reinforce his money making practice. Once the public finally learned about his true background from better-informed authorities or once his patients started getting sick and even dying (evidence of no remorse), he merely pulled up his stakes and took his freshly earned money and business to a new city (or country).
Argument 2: Tumblety was nearly 6’ tall and had a huge mustache, so he would have been too conspicuous in the Whitechapel streets.
If Tumblety were JTR, do you really think it would be impossible for him to be inconspicuous? He certainly felt inconspicuous enough to pursue his homosexual activities with multiple young men in the Whitechapel district in November 1888 when authorities were at the height of combing the streets for JTR.
Keep in mind; the majestic tiger with its massive body and flamboyant colors has an MO of stealth and stalking, not unlike Jack the Ripper. Why are 500 – 800 pound brightly colored tigers so good at surprising their prey? They effectively use the environment. According to Donald Rumbelow, the streets of Whitechapel were very dark with multiple nooks and crannies. Although a picture of Tumblety has his mustache displayed out, the photograph of him in uniform has his mustache following the contour of his face and neck. This could easily fit into a cloak. A 5 foot 11 inch man is no different than a 5 foot 8-inch man at night and in the shadows, especially if he dresses down. Even in Tumblety’s interview in January 1889, he admits to dressing inconspicuously, “I was not dressed in a way to attract attention…”
Argument 3: Tumblety is too old to be a credible JTR suspect.
Remember, Tumblety was arrested twice for violent homosexual encounters in November 1888 with no less than four men. I’m sure the authorities who arrested him at the time for aggressive illegal sexual activities would not consider him too old to handle middle-aged female prostitutes (one at a time). Tumblety had certainly enough mojo to pursue multiple young men while in his fifties. Newspapers continued to characterize him as a powerfully built man. Keep in mind; the oldest known serial killer was a full 20 years older than Tumblety was at the time of the Whitechapel murders. It is also interesting to note that the JTR victims were in their forties; easier targets than younger prostitutes. Didn’t the youthful Ted Bundy likewise hunt youthful victims, so it is not out of the question that an older JTR would prefer older prostitutes?
Argument 4: There is no concrete evidence that Scotland Yard considered Tumblety a serious suspect.
To me, Evans & Gainey’s arguments are convincing enough to answer this argument, but even if you do not, absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence. This is especially true with such a cold case as JTR where concrete physical evidence is all but absent. According to Donald Rumbelow, Scotland Yard officials were directed to exclude the press on the JTR investigation entirely. In view of this, how can one conclude Tumblety’d JTR suspect status by what Scotland Yard said or what they told the press? No wonder the UK press was so silent about Tumblety. With this kind of policy, in order to discover their true motives, one should not consider what Scotland Yard said but consider what they did. They certainly followed Tumblety to the U.S., and in following known Scotland Yard policy, claimed he was not being investigated for the Whitechapel murders.
Tumblety himself admitted to a reporter in January 1889 that Whitechapel authorities not only arrested him for the Whitechapel murders but also charged him with the murders. Tumblety stated, “I happened to be there when these Whitechapel murders…I was not dressed in a way to attract attention… I had simply been guilty of wearing a slouch hat, and for that I was charged with a series of the most horrible crimes ever recorded.” I believe it is foolhardy to reject Tumblety’s truthfulness in this particular part of the interview. He had nothing to gain by admitting to this, especially in light of his chosen profession. Tumblety would be more convincing to begin with facts already known to the public (being arrested and charged in connection with his type of hat), and then twist the story from there into a plausible yet deceptive story.
Interestingly, Tumblety claimed he was going to prepare a pamphlet to refute all charges against him, which never happened. This is reminiscent of what OJ Simpson claimed and then failed to do (recall that he claimed he was going to search tirelessly for the true killers on Nicole Brown Simpson once he was found innocent).
Argument 5: Tumblety does not fit the eyewitness testimonies.
Point one is that it certainly could be true that eyewitnesses were describing the wrong man, just as inspector Aberline suggested. Point two brings up a second revelation, which requires a change in Jack the Ripper’s MO. If the From Hell letter did come from JTR, recall how he signed it, “Catch me when you can.” This points to a killer proud of how he can mutilate a body on the public streets and then easily elude authorities. Not only does he have power over these women, he had power over a frightened public and a baffled police force. Would it not be more effective for a serial killer to focus just as much upon the set up to the attack as the attack itself? If I were JTR, I would certainly draw less attention to myself by not being seen with the prostitute in public at all. I would leisurely follow a selected prostitute on the crowded Whitechapel streets, wait for a John to solicit her, follow the two of them to an obviously private place, watch their sexual encounter, ensure no one else was around, and then once the John left the area, approach the prostitute for the attack whether it be in an ally, a court, or in an apartment. This would conveniently ensure false eyewitness testimony as an effective method of eluding the authorities in the future. While the authorities are looking for a younger, shorter, foreign guy, the taller, older JTR would be better able to roam the streets.
If JTR’s MO was to use a John to solicit his victim, then this opens up the possibility that Tumblety may have murdered Carrie Brown in New York City on April 23/24, 1891, as well. The eyewitness testimony may merely be describing the John and not the killer. Why I bring this up again is because of the amazing coincidence that not only was he in Whitechapel during murders, his residence was walking distance to Carrie Brown’s murder site in 1891 (another ripper-style murder)!
Some consider a stumbling block for Tumblety being Brown’s murderer is the robbery of him in Hot Springs, Arkansas, on “Friday night” (according to The Brooklyn Eagle), which would make it April 17. This is six full days prior to Brown’s murder, and a train ride back home to NYC was only a 2- or 3-day ride. It doesn’t seem too out of the question for Tumblety to quickly come back to NYC to get more cash, since he lost it all in Hot Springs. He could even have been so irritated at losing his precious hard-earned cash that this narcissist had to relieve himself by settling some scores with NYC authorities claiming JTR could never elude them (OK, this one is stretch, but hey, I’m trying to think out of the box).
Argument 6: There is no direct evidence of Tumblety being a violent woman hater and collector of uterus specimens.
To elaborate, the eyewitness testimony of Colonel Dunham is the only direct eyewitness evidence that Tumblety had an extensive collection of uterus specimens and that he was also a woman hater. Since Dunham was a known liar and cheat, these two claims are now suspect, and should not be used. Tumblety no longer has a motive for the JTR killings, thus he is no longer a viable suspect.
This argument impresses me, but I have a few points. I do agree that Colonel Dunham spun a tail about Tumblety in December 1888 for personal reasons, especially since Tumblety was in all of the U.S. papers at the time as a major Ripper suspect. I do not agree, however, to entirely reject these two claims. In order for Dunham to get the biggest public reaction from this deceptive interview, why not embellish upon what Tumblety has previously been accused of. My contention is that the two claims, especially the woman hater claim, should not be ignored since Scotland Yard mostly likely considered them. Keep in mind; Littlechild in his letter stated, “…but his feelings towards women were remarkable and bitter in the extreme, a fact on record.”
Regardless, I believe this argument is missing the point. The argument is challenging a possible motive for Tumblety to murder. Being a woman-hater is only one motive that fits a narcissistic Tumblety. According to the experts, the following are general motives for serial killers: visionary (voices told me to do it), mission-oriented (hate men, women, prostitutes, etc.), hedonistic (lust, for the thrill, for comfort/profit), and power. Apparently, all known serial killers have one thing in common, child abuse and/or neglect. Remember, Tumblety was selling pornographic material on the locks as a youth. This type of upbringing screams of parental neglect and even possible physical/sexual abuse.
There is one more pattern with the ripper victims that I have not yet seen presented, but Cris Scott’s 9/12/08 thread (1857 Arrest in Montreal – abortion medicine) just might have revealed another connection to Tumblety. When detective Simard attempted to set Tumblety up in order to arrest him for illegal practices in Montreal, Canada in 1857, the detective asked if he had any remedies to procure a miscarriage for a young girl. Tumblety responded by asking if the intended patient was Protestant or Catholic. Tumblety agreed to assist when he found out she was Protestant. Tumblety was known to be Catholic, so it seems he had one set of scruples. He did not cross a line in assisting a Catholic female to lose her immortal soul. If Tumblety were JTR, then maybe this line is present in the ripper victims. As far as I can tell, all of the victims were Protestant. If one was Catholic, then this just might be able to refute Tumblety as a candidate. Can anyone help on this?
Sincerely,
Mike
Comment