Critiquing arguments against Tumblety, or Francis the Ripper

[Cap'n Jack]

Thanks Chadwick, but the original spelling mistake was Banana's, for he wanted to take a long jump and he mistakenly thought he could do so off a 'peer'.
I know my 'peers'; why only yesterday I plucked a fine one off a tree.

[Chadwick]

Thanks Chadwick, but the original spelling mistake was Banana's, for he wanted to take a long jump and he mistakenly thought he could do so off a 'peer'.
I know my 'peers'; why only yesterday I plucked a fine one off a tree.

...and you naturally slipped on Banana's mistake? Stepping in about this was just too a - peeling.

Okay, I'll bow out and leave the discussion to those who are far more informed. I'm finding it fascinating and informative. Thanks to all!

Best,
~Chadwick

[Tom_Wescott]

However, it has been the somewhat acrimonious situation that has developed in very recent years that concerns me, where others who have read your volume regard what is written there as the final word on Tumblety; and resist any attempts to digest or progress the wealth of new information that we have been flooded with in these recent years.

Speaking as a Tumbelty 'outsider', let me say that I don't know of anyone who has 'resisted' the new information in favor of the old, but I can say that because there has been literally and endless stream of information, from every corner, coming in about Tumblety, and scattered in thread after thread, or buried in posts, it's extremely difficult to follow or understand unless you make a focused study of it. When I jump in one of the overlong threads, I find I don't understand what I'm reading so it's easier just not to follow along.

I guess what I'm saying is that a new volume on Tumblety is long overdue. The same might interesting for Cutbush, but it seems AP can't be arsed.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Cap'n Jack]

Then I'd suggest to you, Tom, that SPE is the most superbly equipped human being on this planet to write a new Tumblety volume but he can't be arsed either.

[Tom_Wescott]

I would agree that, AP, although I'm not sure as to how arsed he can be or not. I know you can be quite the arse, though. j/k

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[timothy]

I'd just like to say that a brand new volume on Tumblety is already available - Prince of Quacks - which was published in October of last year.

Best,

Tim

[Tom_Wescott]

I wasn't aware that was out. Is it any good? I mean a volume on Tumblety in regards to the Ripper case.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[timothy]

I am afraid I am a little biased as I wrote it.

[Tom_Wescott]

What's your last name, Timothy?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[timothy]

The name of the book is "Prince of Quacks" and my name is Tim Riordan

[Tom_Wescott]

Oh, I know Tim Riordan. Of course! Okay, so you didn't just crawl out of the woodwork with a book. Ha ha. Congrats on that. Is it true that once you publish a book, Stewart Evans let's you make eye contact with him?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[timothy]

Thanks - I have been waiting for a review or two to come out before pushing it. It was a fun book to write and I hope it is fun to read. The Doctor is always interesting

Tim

[Tom_Wescott]

My unsolicited advice is loose the lower-case little boys name and re-register as Tim Riordan. I'd buy a book from him. I'd buy a collie from the former.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

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)?
Mike.

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."
SPE

I’d like to address both these comments as one, if I may.

As I wrote, the term “woman hater” was used at the time of the Whitechapel Murders, and for many years before, to indicate homosexuality and not actual feelings of loathing or murderous intentions towards women. Homosexuality was little understood at the time and a “hatred for women” was as good an explanation as any to the Victorian layman. So yes, I believe the comments merely refer to Tumblety’s homosexuality.

The sentence in question found in the Western Druggist (December, 1888) that “The man was arrested simply because he was known as a woman-hater…” deals, in my mind, not with Tumblety’s arrest in connection with the murders but rather with the second part of the news reports that hit North America: that Tumblety was arrested for homosexual acts. As the New York World stated “The police could not hold him on suspicion of the Whitechapel crimes, but he will be committed for trial at the Central Criminal Court under the special law passed soon after the Modern Babylon exposures.” (New York World, 17 November, 1888).

As to Littlechild’s comment to Sims, he had started the sentence quoted above by stating that Tumblety was a “Sycopathia Sexualis subject,” i.e. that he was an homosexual, and went on to say, basically, that he wasn’t a shrinking violet about it. And Tumblety’s homosexuality was a “fact on record” and it was a record in Britain apparently dating back to 1873.

The Victorian attitude of Tumblety as an homosexual, and therefore a viable Whitechapel Murder suspect, is summed up in the interview with William Pinkerton found in the Chicago Inter Ocean, 20 November, 1888:

“And what did people who came in contact with the doctor think of his general character?”
“People familiar with the history of the man always talked of him as a brute, and as brutal in his actions. He was known as a thorough woman-hater and as a man who never associated with or mixed with women of any kind….”
“And what do you think are the probabilities of his being the man who committed the Whitechapel murders – murders committed, apparently, without any object in view? Do you consider that the Doctor was insane?”
“Yes, I do. I think a man guilty of such practices as those I have referred to (homosexuality) must be insane; and Dr. Hammond – Surgeon General Hammond – some time ago, when asked as to whether or not he thought that the Whitechapel murderer was an insane man, said that when the murderer of those women was discovered he would undoubtedly be found to be a woman-hater and a man guilty of the same practices (homosexuality) which I have described, and Twombley, or Tumblety, as being guilty of, and that such men were crazy and as likely as not to murder women.”

Wolf.

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Hi Stewart.

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."
SPE

Interesting. You’ve obviously taken the above from Carman Cumming’s article in Ripperologist e-zine that was also reprinted in the book Ripperology, the Best of Ripperologist Magazine where I see he also wrote:

“Several writers have quoted this account as being true, but it is now clear that Dunham himself was also a most remarkable liar and scoundrel, possibly the least reliable witness who ever faked a newspaper column. Therefore, his account of Dr. Tumblety must be treated with great caution.”

Cumming, as you may know, is neither a Tumblety nor Whitechapel Murder expert and he ends his article with these wise words:

“So while the truth of his Tumblety story remains clouded, there can be no doubt whatever of the complexity of Dunham’s lies. Each part of his Tumblety story will therefore have to be tested, piece by piece, against available evidence.”

Much of this had already been done before Cumming’s article appeared and, as I wrote above, proved to be a pack of lies.

For example, Cummings writes “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.” This is not in doubt, but as I wrote above, “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.”

Nothing Dunham wrote about Tumblety appears to be the truth and quoting from Cumming, who doesn’t have all the facts, isn’t going to change that.

Wolf.