The 'argument AGAINST Tumblety' debate thread

[Garry Wroe]

Your book sounds very interesting. Is it available online?

Yes, Mike. Click on this link:-

http://www.casebook.org/ripper_media/book_reviews/non-fiction/garrywroe_full2.html

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[mklhawley]

Yes, Mike. Click on this link:-

http://www.casebook.org/ripper_media/book_reviews/non-fiction/garrywroe_full2.html

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

Garry,

It is clearly apparent you have invested some time, energy, and brainpower into this. I am going to enjoy it. Thanks.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Garry Wroe]

You're welcome, Mike.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[Fisherman]

Garry Wroe writes:

“I fail to see any evidence of intelligent planning in the crimes of Albert Fish. Rather, I see the kind of entropic thinking that is characteristic of the mentally disordered disorganized offender.”

From what I have read about Fish, Garry, I must disagree. To bunch him together with Gein and Chase makes no sense to me.

The Grace Budd killing was preceded by a show that Fish put on in order to gain the confidence of the girls family. As I understand it, this meant that Fish presented himself as Frank Howard, a successful farmer who needed help with his farm (he had answered an ad from Grace Budds older brother, who was looking for a job). He offered the young man a position and left, with a promise to come back later in the week to pick up Graces brother.

Fish/Howard did not turn up at the given date, but instead he came around some time after, and brought fresh strawberries and pot cheese with him, purportedly from his own farm, and explained that he had not been able to keep the appointment for business reasons. He charmed Grace Budds father completely, and then claimed that he had a sister in town, whose daughter had her birthday party, and said that he would be glad to bring Grace with him to the party, if the parents would allow it. They would – and that was that.

If, Garry, this story holds true, I fail to see how it can be said that Fish was not able to intelligently plan a crime. What I see here is quite a clever scheme, a lot of patience, and a gift for charming and persuasion. We also know that Fish was supposed to have killed at least fifteen children, whereas he himself stated that he had killed in twenty-three states. He was supposed to have killed first back in 1910, and it took 26 years before he was executed. So, for 26 years, this man managed to kill and stay undetected, and THAT is not something that would be expected of a disorganized killer with no talent for intelligent planning. If that description really did apply to Fish, then one must say that the Ripper´s gift for staying undetected was surpassed very radically by Fish. And if you are correct, Fish would stand a much lesser chance to stay undetected than the Ripper!

True enough, it was said in the courtroom that there were signs of religious psychosis and delusions, but Fish was deemed fit to stand trial and he was sentenced to death, and whatever judgement you or I see fit to pass on him, it remains, I think, quite clear that if this is an example of a sadistic, disorganized killer, then it is also an example of such a killer that had no problems at all to plan and go through with unspeakably evil crimes and totally deceive the people surrounding his chosen victim. And as such, the case makes it clear – at least to me – that we may well have had a related psychology harboured in the Ripper. And that, I believe, was what the discussion was about.

The best,
Fisherman

[Hunter]

This is off topic, but I agree with you, Garry, that the Ripper was probably a more organized killer... or somewhere in-between; if such terms are even valid.

More pyschologist are classifying some murderers as just 'evil' in the classic sense. I think Albert Fish is the epitomy of such. There is little doubt that he was cunning in his quest for victims but like many, he gets caught up in the postmortem gloating. His big mistake seems to be the letter he sent to the Budds describing his 'achievement' with their daugter; enabling the police to set a trap for him. Some members of the jury later claimed that they believed him to be insane but thought he should be executed anyway. I think he was the oldest person to ever be electrocuted.

[Fisherman]

Hunter writes:

"I agree with you, Garry"

and

"There is little doubt that he was cunning in his quest for victims"

...and I´m afraid that is where you dont agree with Garry, since his wiew is that Fish was uncapable of any intelligent planning of a crime.

The best,
Fisherman
off to bed - see you tomorrow!

[Hunter]

Hi Fisherman,

I do disagree with that part... as you stated, he got away with it for many years.

[Garry Wroe]

The Grace Budd killing was preceded by a show that Fish put on in order to gain the confidence of the girls family. As I understand it, this meant that Fish presented himself as Frank Howard, a successful farmer who needed help with his farm (he had answered an ad from Grace Budds older brother, who was looking for a job). He offered the young man a position and left, with a promise to come back later in the week to pick up Graces brother.

I’m familiar with the various components of the Fish case, Fisherman, and maintain that I discern little intelligent planning in Fish’s crime-related behaviour. To put it another way, he repeatedly took the kind of risks that would have been avoided by a more organized offender. He allowed himself to be seen by the Budd family, for example; allowed Grace to wander where she might have been observed by potential eyewitnesses; attempted to abduct one child, was chased away by adults, then returned to virtually the same locus an hour or so later and this time succeeded in abducting a second youngster. Added to this, of course, was the sloppiness of sending out a letter that was traced back to him courtesy of a distinguishing mark on the envelope. Whichever way one cares to look at it, such elements do not bear the hallmark of the organized personality.

If, Garry, this story holds true, I fail to see how it can be said that Fish was not able to intelligently plan a crime. What I see here is quite a clever scheme, a lot of patience, and a gift for charming and persuasion.

I’m afraid that I see a family so desperate to secure employment for Grace’s brother that they saw what they wanted to see, and in so doing allowed a child to be taken away by a perfect stranger. Given their breathtaking irresponsibility in this affair, it comes as no surprise that they sought to minimize their own culpability by significantly inflating Fish’s plausibility and powers of persuasion.

We also know that Fish was supposed to have killed at least fifteen children, whereas he himself stated that he had killed in twenty-three states. He was supposed to have killed first back in 1910, and it took 26 years before he was executed. So, for 26 years, this man managed to kill and stay undetected, and THAT is not something that would be expected of a disorganized killer with no talent for intelligent planning.

Then perhaps you might care to examine the case of Joachim Kroll, Fish, to cite but one amongst many disorganized serialists who evaded capture over a protracted period of time.

If that description really did apply to Fish, then one must say that the Ripper´s gift for staying undetected was surpassed very radically by Fish.

I’ll put that one down to English being your second language!

True enough, it was said in the courtroom that there were signs of religious psychosis and delusions, but Fish was deemed fit to stand trial and he was sentenced to death …

Such was the depth and complexity of Fish’s psychopathology that one psychiatrist declared that Fish merited a clinical category all of his own. Other clinicians were equally certain that Fish was psychotic. Irrespective of legal pronunciations to the contrary, therefore, there can be little doubt but that Albert Fish was suffering from severe mental disease at the time of his trial. Since such disorders do not appear overnight, it can be safely assumed that Fish’s psychological issues extended back at least a decade.

As interesting as the present discussion is, Fisherman, I fear that we have strayed way off-topic. For the sake of propriety, therefore, I propose that we simply agree to disagree with respect to Albert Fish and return to the central theme of the current thread – Tumblety.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[Fisherman]

Garry Wroe writes:

"I fear that we have strayed way off-topic. For the sake of propriety, therefore, I propose that we simply agree to disagree with respect to Albert Fish and return to the central theme of the current thread – Tumblety."

Disagree we do, Garry, we´re agreed on that. And I will merrily leave the thread to Tumblety, but not until having responded to this:

"I’m familiar with the various components of the Fish case, Fisherman, and maintain that I discern little intelligent planning in Fish’s crime-related behaviour. To put it another way, he repeatedly took the kind of risks that would have been avoided by a more organized offender."

Our discussion, Garry, has revolved around the possibility that the Ripper may have been a man that suffered from delusions and may have acted upon them when he killed. Therefore, when you state that Fish took risks that would have been avoided by more organized offenders, may I please remind you that the Ripper attacked people in the open street, cut their necks and disemboweled them on the sidewalks. I can´t help but feeling that such a behavior points very little in the direction of organized killers. And it is not as if it was the least risky way to go about killing either.
So thanks, but no thanks, if you pardon my French. And my Swedish.

Back to Tumblety it is, then.

The best,
Fisherman

[Carrotty Nell]

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.

I'm fascinated by this theory of JTR stalking a prospective victim along with a john and leaping in when the john has gone. If it were the john who were described by the likes of Lawende then this would account for the lack of similarity in the description and the description of Tumblety. So I have looked to see how this fits in, as follows:

Stride: BS man is the john and Tumblety is the Pipeman who was described as a taller, older man. So Tumblety chases off Schwartz, returns and if BS man is still there waits for BS man to finish with Stride? Sorry, no time. The altercation is timed at 12.45 and Stride was dead by 12.50. Tumblety would have to chase off BS man as well. That's a possible scenario of course.

Eddowes: Sailor-man is the john whom Lawende sees (c. 1.32 am). Tumblety is the well-dressed individual who asks Blenkinsop in Orange Market if he has seen a man and woman go through Church Passage (c. 1.35 am). So Tumblety gets to Mitre Sq c.1.36. Sailor-man would probably still be with Eddowes (I'm not an expert on how long "it" takes...). Tumblety has to complete the murder and mutilation and disappear without trace before Watkins arrives at 1.44. So again, more likely that he gets rid of Sailor-man by threatening and chasing him off or pretending to be a policeman.

Kelly: Blotchy is the john and Tumblety is Lewis' man waiting opposite the arch for Blotchy to come out. Stretching things here. Lewis' description is woefully inadequate, but she does specifically describe him as a small man. Whatever else about Tumblety's appearance it would be possible to mistake in the poor lighting, doubtful if it would be his physical size.

Even so, Mike's theory fits rather well. Tumblety follows johns or prospective victims with johns. In the case of Stride and Eddowes he gets rid of the john and in the case of Kelly waits for the john to go.

The problem I see is that in BS-man, Sailor-man and Blotchy we now have three very important witnesses, probably the most important witnesses in the entire series as they would have looked Tumblety in the face. Yet none of them came forward as witnesses. Of course they might fear being treated as a suspect if they did, being the last people known to have been seen with a certain victim. But there was the lure of the reward too as a counter-argument. It is hard to believe that at least one of these three vital witnesses did not come forward.

[GregBaron]

Caveat.......

One possible wrench in the works of this theory you guys...........If the women had just scored with a John wouldn't they have a few coins on them? I think Chapman may have had a couple of coins at her feet but I don't believe any of the rest had any.......now would JtR rob them? Seems unlikely especially if it's the rich Tumblety.........

Greg

[Fisherman]

Greg Baron writes:

"I think Chapman may have had a couple of coins at her feet but I don't believe any of the rest had any..."

Them coins are not witnessed about, Greg. What Phillips said at the inquest was: "I searched the yard and found a small piece of coarse muslin, a small-tooth comb, and a pocket-comb, in a paper case, near the railing. They had apparently been arranged there."

... but no coins were to be found in that installation. Maybe it was the doctor´s words on blood drops the size of a sixpenny that set off the myth about the coins. Whichever way, I think you make a fair point about Tumblety and the robbing aspect!

The best,
Fisherman

[mklhawley]

Hi guys,

Two points: First, Tumblety was cheap and the only time he opened up his proverbial wallet was when it was to his advantage. I believe he was involved in a few minor theft cases, such as taking someone's watch. It reminds me of some rich and famous actresses getting caught stealing clothes in a department store. Second, I do recall part of what Tumblety had possession of after his death were a couple of cheap rings. If Tumblety actually was JTR, then the possibility of these being trophies seems high. I just would not put it past this guy to take the coins.

Just a few thoughts.

Sincerely,

Mike

[GregBaron]

Robbery....

Sorry Fisherman, I was just going from memory and must have succumbed to the coin myth... I knew very little or no money was found on the women.....

It's also possible Mklhawley that Tumblety stole the coins but that would be an unusual trophy.....trophies are typically something personal from the victim...money isn't very personal IMHO.......a cheapskate might steal in the circumstances but rooting around in these women's cumbersome clothing seems a dangerous waste of time.....

I like the Tumblety stalking and pouncing theory but I think it presents some logical/logistical difficulties..........

Greg

[mklhawley]

Sorry Fisherman, I was just going from memory and must have succumbed to the coin myth... I knew very little or no money was found on the women.....

It's also possible Mklhawley that Tumblety stole the coins but that would be an unusual trophy.....trophies are typically something personal from the victim...money isn't very personal IMHO.......a cheapskate might steal in the circumstances but rooting around in these women's cumbersome clothing seems a dangerous waste of time.....

I like the Tumblety stalking and pouncing theory but I think it presents some logical/logistical difficulties..........

Greg

Hey, I'm just excited that Carrotty Nell took interest in it!

Sincerely,

Mike