Critiquing arguments against Tumblety, or Francis the Ripper

[mklhawley]

'This is why flowery and angry language is rejected in peer reviewed literature.'

I do not think that enough flowery and angry language can ever be used when presenting or studying this case; and the only peer I see is pointing out to sea.

Now, I would like to challenge you on a couple of comments. Your Irish contractions comment about the From Hell letter has no meat, just opinions. A priori methodologies are required in such a cold case as this, because there is so little evidence. My point: We must look for patterns, and the Irish pattern in the From Hell letter is more meat than mere opinions from a salty ripperologist. Where is your evidence to reject this pattern?

Archaic clearly found an article that discusses Tumblety and his woman-hater feelings prior to Colonel Dunham's interview. This is corroborated by the Littlechild interview. This points to one thing, him being a woman-hater was common knowledge based upon events other than Dunham's interview. Your mistake is suggesting those that who consider Tumblety as a serious suspect use this as the cornerstone argument. No, it is merely a possible motive. I personally see multiple possible motives a narcissistic Tumblety could have been guided by, IF he were JTR.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Natalie Severn]

"...edifice cames atumblety down" - Now, that is funny!

Capt'n Jack,

I like some of your ideas, but I say again, they now come an emotional price tag of bias. This is why flowery and angry language is rejected in peer reviewed literature.

Mike

Mike.I sincerely hope you are not being serious above? If you are then presumably the beautiful flowery language of Shakespeare would be rejected too by this " peer reviewed literature"? Or Martin Luther King"s "I have a dream"---which was surely one of the most flowery speeches ever and certainly of the last 50 years? Rejected because of bias?

Stay real Mike and we will listen to you.
Cheers

[Cap'n Jack]

'This is why flowery and angry language is rejected in peer reviewed literature.'

I do not think that enough flowery and angry language can ever be used when presenting or studying this case; and the only peer I see is pointing out to sea.

[mklhawley]

Is there Irish contraction in the 'From Hell' letter?
It is merely the opinion of a few who read the 'sir' as 'sor', and upon this much wild speculation, theorising and nonsense is built.
I've been at this for years now, and I know just how the boys construct a house of cards... and this is a house of cards, which when you start pulling at one card the whole marvelous edifice cames atumblety down.
Ignoring proven facts in such a case as this does the case no good whatsoever.
As I've said the myth of Inspector Andrews pursuit of Tumblety across the great pond is just that, but time and time again we hear this myth propogated simply because it carries weight with the issuer.
Another fact that is gracefully ignored by all concerned is that Tumblety had a hell of a reputation when younger as a 'womaniser'. I found these reports over three years ago in early American newspapers, but they have been disgracefully ignored since then.
Why?
Well I'll tell you why... because it does not sit well with those who would have their Tumblety as a 'woman-hater' and errant collector of their privy parts.
The list is endless and inexhaustible. Even his arrest and detention for the Whitechapel Murders is the very stuff of myth and legend. Efforts have been made to crucify the poor old fool for asking whether the woman he intended to abort was Protestant or Catholic... forsooth the Fenian swine etc etc. He was just doing what any good doctor would do as he knew that it was illegal and immoral for a Catholic to carry out such an act.
Recently we have discovered that Tumblety at the time of his English visit was possessed of immense wealth, so why should he go to two men for his bail money?
And again we still see the sinister efforts to magnify Tumblety's offences against young men into some kind of vicious and violent assault, when all he was doing was what a thousand men a day do today. Paying for sex.
There is a creeping endeavour here to try and use Tumblety in the same way that Oscar Wilde was used not long after, but many forget that Oscar was offered the chance to flee to France before his trial. He chose not to.
I would suggest that Tumblety was given the same option, and you could hear the mad rush of his magnificent moustachios across the English Channel.

"...edifice cames atumblety down" - Now, that is funny!

Capt'n Jack,

I notice you use a lot of inflamatory adjectives and adverbs, such as "sinister". These responses are emotional, which means they come from your limbic system, which is the same location of the brain that pride, bias, and denial come from. This truly does suggest all of your experience and background is being clouded by emotional responses. I like some of your ideas, but I say again, they now come an emotional price tag of bias. This is why flowery and angry language is rejected in peer reviewed literature.

Mike

[Cap'n Jack]

Is there Irish contraction in the 'From Hell' letter?
It is merely the opinion of a few who read the 'sir' as 'sor', and upon this much wild speculation, theorising and nonsense is built.
I've been at this for years now, and I know just how the boys construct a house of cards... and this is a house of cards, which when you start pulling at one card the whole marvelous edifice cames atumblety down.
Ignoring proven facts in such a case as this does the case no good whatsoever.
As I've said the myth of Inspector Andrews pursuit of Tumblety across the great pond is just that, but time and time again we hear this myth propogated simply because it carries weight with the issuer.
Another fact that is gracefully ignored by all concerned is that Tumblety had a hell of a reputation when younger as a 'womaniser'. I found these reports over three years ago in early American newspapers, but they have been disgracefully ignored since then.
Why?
Well I'll tell you why... because it does not sit well with those who would have their Tumblety as a 'woman-hater' and errant collector of their privy parts.
The list is endless and inexhaustible. Even his arrest and detention for the Whitechapel Murders is the very stuff of myth and legend. Efforts have been made to crucify the poor old fool for asking whether the woman he intended to abort was Protestant or Catholic... forsooth the Fenian swine etc etc. He was just doing what any good doctor would do as he knew that it was illegal and immoral for a Catholic to carry out such an act.
Recently we have discovered that Tumblety at the time of his English visit was possessed of immense wealth, so why should he go to two men for his bail money?
And again we still see the sinister efforts to magnify Tumblety's offences against young men into some kind of vicious and violent assault, when all he was doing was what a thousand men a day do today. Paying for sex.
There is a creeping endeavour here to try and use Tumblety in the same way that Oscar Wilde was used not long after, but many forget that Oscar was offered the chance to flee to France before his trial. He chose not to.
I would suggest that Tumblety was given the same option, and you could hear the mad rush of his magnificent moustachios across the English Channel.

[mklhawley]

Hi Trevor,

Thank you for all of your assumptions and opinions, however, your claim that Tumblety being a suspect is based solely upon assumptions and opinions suggests there is no pattern of evidence, and that is simply false. The pattern could be wrong, but there certainly is one. I also feel a bit of anger/frustration in your response, something I’ve noticed in quite often in ripperology. In science, all too often the experts draw lines in the sand based not upon the evidence but upon ego and pride (ex. Multiregionalists v. Out of Africa proponents, plate tectonics, etc.), and it does nothing to serve the search for truth. It takes a full generation to filter out the invalid. I honestly do not mean to anger anyone.
I would like to repeat myself: absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence. Suggesting Monro would have commented upon Tumblety is mere assumption (a claim you are charging me with).
When you suggest Tumblety liked the attention, his resulting behavior does not fit. He truly attempted to disappear. As I stated earlier, his pattern of attention getting matches a narcissistic pattern of financial gain. Every eccentric thing he did points to this.
I would love someone to respond to the Irish contraction connection in the From Hell letter. I see another pattern and I’ve yet to hear a counter argument. Anyone up to the challenge?

Sincerely,

Mike

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=mklhawley;115228]Trevor, here's my counter argument which pertains to your question. I'm not sure if you read it, considering your comment.

"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)."

Donald Rumbelow seems to give a reason why the UK press was silent, and I'm not sure if they cared what the US press was saying. Rumbelow commented upon how some press members had special favors with Scotland Yard officials. I bet it went both ways. Recall, Scotland Yard officials told US papers Tumblety was not a suspect, yet we now know they did consider him a suspect. It confirms they practiced deception in order to lead the press away from their actions. It certainly supports the idea they told their own press connections to be silent.

What do you think?
I think that Stewart and Paul Gainey did and excellent job in investigating Tumblety based on what Littlechild had suggested and it was right and proper that he should have been investigated. However in reality Littlechild only voiced an opinion some 20 odd years later suggesting that Tumblety "could" have been JTR.

I think that the combination of Tumblety being classed as a Doctor and the suggestion at the time that a medical man could have been JTR together with his arrest at the time of the murders and his absconding fuelled wild speculation in the press.

Littlechild states that there were files on him at Scotland yard. Up until now none have ever come to light. If that were the case how come Mcnaghten did not mention him in his memo which I beleive was prepared from information and other files scotland yard had built up over a period of time in relation to the murders.

Furthermore Littlechild makes no mention of Tumblety in his book which was published in 1894 the same year Macnaghten produced the memo.

In addittion James Monro who was superior to Littlechild has never mentioned Tumblety in any interview. Nor was any mention made of him in Monros unpublished memoirs which were found in the 90`s

Finally if Coles or Mckenzie are to be considered as Ripper victims then this also rules him out as we know he was not here then.

All in all take away Littlechilds opinion and what is left to work on "nothing" I dont consider an opinion to be classed as "scotland yard suspected"

Tumblety has been investigated and I personally do not think he was JTR and certainly should not be regarded as a "prime suspect" as some suggest. He liked the attention and by him saying he had been arrested for the murders would have given him that attention which we know it did.

As far as the officer supposedly following him i dont belive this to be correct and i think it is documemted that the officer went there on an unrelated matter. Looking at this sensibly. Scotland yard didnt know he was going to abscond. When Tumblety decided to leave no one knew where he was going so how could he have been followed. Had the police known he was about to abscond then he could have been re arrested before being able to do so. He then turns up in The USA sometime later, its a bit late to follow him then would you not think, and in any event what would be the point as has been said previous extradition wasnt an option.

Buy hey ho you asked what i thought but i am sure there are many on here who will not share the same views. But thank you for inviting me to add some input.

"The truth is still out there"

[mklhawley]

I think that if Tumbelty had actually been officially arrested as a suspect for the Whitechapel murders. It would have been mentioned in the british press if not his name at least there would have been a mention of a suspect being in custody. After all it was a very high profile case, and at that time they had made no real arrests save for Pfizer.

In the absence of this i would suggest that all of these report are made up and an exageration of the indeceny arrest. No one other than Littlechild seems to have mentioned him and he only gave an opinion.

Perhpaps Stewart could clarify the issue with regard to when he was arrested and officially bailed. There seems to be confusion on this aspect as well.

"The Truth is stil out there"

Trevor, here's my counter argument which pertains to your question. I'm not sure if you read it, considering your comment.

"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)."

Donald Rumbelow seems to give a reason why the UK press was silent, and I'm not sure if they cared what the US press was saying. Rumbelow commented upon how some press members had special favors with Scotland Yard officials. I bet it went both ways. Recall, Scotland Yard officials told US papers Tumblety was not a suspect, yet we now know they did consider him a suspect. It confirms they practiced deception in order to lead the press away from their actions. It certainly supports the idea they told their own press connections to be silent.

What do you think?

Mike

[Natalie Severn]

It also has to be remembered that dozens and dozens of people were brought in for questioning-some were arrested and then released as may have happened with Tumblety.
Not only that the police had their hands full with the daily queues of crack pots stating they were Jack the Ripper etc and Macnaghten tells us that police mail bags overflowed at this time with another group of disturbed people sending them an assortment of bizarre letters claiming to be JtR or that he was their dad etc.

[Trevor Marriott]

I think that if Tumbelty had actually been officially arrested as a suspect for the Whitechapel murders. It would have been mentioned in the british press if not his name at least there would have been a mention of a suspect being in custody. After all it was a very high profile case, and at that time they had made no real arrests save for Pfizer.

In the absence of this i would suggest that all of these report are made up and an exageration of the indeceny arrest. No one other than Littlechild seems to have mentioned him and he only gave an opinion.

Perhpaps Stewart could clarify the issue with regard to when he was arrested and officially bailed. There seems to be confusion on this aspect as well.

"The Truth is stil out there"

[Archaic]

Tumblety 'Arrested For Complicity in the Whitechapel Murders' December 1888

Hi Stewart, Mike & all.

This is the article that Mike referred to earlier; it states that Tumblety was "arrested in London for complicity in the Whitechapel murders."

Mike had specific questions about this article relating to Scotland Yard and Colonel Durham which I really couldn't answer,
so perhaps others here can help him? Thanks.

This article comes from the December 1888 edition of an American medical journal called 'The Medical Standard'.

Here's a link to the 'Misc. Tumblety Articles' thread where Mike asked his question, posts # 4 and #7:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=3749

Thanks & best regards, Archaic

[Archaic]

My Two Cents

Hi, Stewart, how are you?

I just wanted to say that agree with what you've said over the course of the preceding pages, and appreciate you going into detail for us regarding your opinions and experiences.

Everybody with any common sense knows that you are one of the pioneers of Ripperology, and that for all your years of hard work,
important discoveries, and dedicated endeavor the rest of us are in your debt.

It's unfortunate that certain individuals on online forums can exhibit a tendency to descend into petty competition, shallow egotism,
and blatant rudeness. Besides being unpleasant and rather boring, it's a loss for all of us if it so aggravates others that they avoid participating.

But of course, curtailing the participation of others is exactly what some people hope to achieve- maybe because deep inside they know that they themselves have failed to achieve something more worthwhile?

There are dysfunctional people whose egos so crave attention that if they can't inspire interested attention and positive feedback they settle for stirring up strife & negative attention, then pat themselves on the back and pretend that it's some sort of personal achievement.

I have no idea who they think they're fooling other than themselves, but I think it's sad to see such jealousy evinced in public.
It's also tedious.

I hope you won't stop participating, Stewart; the vast majority of us are here on Casebook because we want to learn and to share ideas,
and we look forward to your posts.

Sincerely,
Archaic

I think you may be right c.d. I imagine that in Victorian London a gay man was seen as a woman hater whether he was or not----just as gay women are still seen by some ,automatically, as men haters.
Best
Norma

I would also doubt that a bisexual would be seen as anything other than a homosexual in that era Nats. Open and frank discussions on Human Sexuality were not viable topics in the Victorian era.

My best regards

[Natalie Severn]

Couldn't Tumblety's alleged hatred of women simply been a ruse to explain why he was not seen in their company thus covering up the real reason?

c.d.

I think you may be right c.d. I imagine that in Victorian London a gay man was seen as a woman hater whether he was or not----just as gay women are still seen by some ,automatically, as men haters.
Best
Norma

[c.d.]

Couldn't Tumblety's alleged hatred of women simply been a ruse to explain why he was not seen in their company thus covering up the real reason?

c.d.