Critiquing arguments against Tumblety, or Francis the Ripper

[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.

[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]

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]

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

[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

[Hunter]

Writing of Tumbelty- I know nothing of his childhood so that,well doesn't cross out, but postpones senerio two.

It has been said that Tumblety, as a child, sold pornography to riverboat men.
Don't remember the source, off hand though.

Best Wishes,
Hunter

[Simon Wood]

Hi Corey,

Just for reference, what school grade are you?

Regards,

Simon

[corey123]

Deleted

Yours truly.

Ps. I also need to know his relationship with family,how he acted in school,ect. Pornography does'nt signal Narcissism.

By the way Simon, Why would you need to know this?

[mklhawley]

Hi Corey,

Just for reference, what school grade are you?

Regards,

Simon

Simon,

Corey certainly thinks like a person with a lifetime of experience. I wish I had him on my debate team.

Mike

[corey123]

Mike,

I am deffenently younger than most. Though not still in grade school. I assume it is because of my spelling and grammer. Never was my strong spot.

But thanks for the comment.

I truly appriciat them.

[mklhawley]

Thank you everyone for participating in this thread. I truly appreciated it.

Sincerely,

Banana

[Stewart P Evans]

Feelings Towards Women

...
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.”
...
Wolf.

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."

[Cap'n Jack]

'Thank you everyone for participating in this thread. I truly appreciated it.

Sincerely,

Banana'

I warned you not to leave the skin at the end of the peer.

[Stewart P Evans]

Dunham

...

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.
...
Wolf.

A few points I should like to make.

At the time of writing the book about Tumblety, 1994-1995, all the information we had on Dunham was the quoted article on Tumblety. Had we known of his 'Sanford Conover' alter ego we would have been aware that this cast considerable doubt on his story, and we would have mentioned his character and left readers to decide for themselves as to the story he told.

As it happens I did not personally become aware of Dunham's aliases and his involvement as regards the Lincoln conspirators etc., until 1999. Even Lincoln conspiracy historians who had assisted Paul Gainey had failed, prior to then, to pick up on this. The full story of Conover's perjury was forwarded to me in February 2000. This, despite the fact that I had, for some four years at that time, been no longer researching Tumblety. But, I again state, it is fine to criticise a work that was written all those years ago when no one at all in Ripperworld had even heard of Tumblety or Dunham and there were no easy research facilities such as there are today.

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."

[Stewart P Evans]

Trouble Is

...
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.

The trouble is AP, you always reduce it to a personal and insulting level, no wonder I take it personally. I can accept the fact that when we wrote our book in 1994/5 there was much relevant information on Tumblety still to be found. But the omission of this material was not deliberate as it was not found in Ripper related researches until years later and we simply did not have it. As I said, hindsight is a fine thing.