The 'argument AGAINST Tumblety' debate thread

[Fisherman]

Rubyretro writes:

"Hutchinson has to be a suspect based on more than surmise, and indeed if this were a modern case, he would be a favourite Police suspect, surely ? He was a person identified by both himself and an independent witness as being at the scene of a Ripper crime, in the right time frame, in extremely suspicious circumstances, and spouting a witness statement which was later discounted by Police themselves - and even discredited by many modern commentators who DON'T believe that he was the killer; He has to be a suspect who is at least as viable as any of the 'official' suspects of the time, and in my opinion, more so.."

Of course, Hutchinsons candidacy has viability, Ruby. But let us not forget that the details you list here were apparent to the Victorian police also, and if you are correct - and I think you are - the self same police force came to discount his testimony (although we cannot say if this was because of it´s inherent qualities or because something else turned up or was dug up by the press, something that caused the following uninterest), and therefore they KNEW that they were dealing with a man that had placed himself at the murder spot and who had no alibi for the murder. And in spite of this, it would seem that Hutch was never a favoured suspect amongst the police.
My guess is that this would have had another reason than negligence on behalf of the police force. They may well have been convinced that he could not have been the killer, owing to - for example - testimony unknown to us.

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

for Claire -I am sincerely sorry to start rattling on about Hutch again in this thread, and I don't want Hutch to take it over, still I'm burning with the urge to reply to some points raised :

[QUOTE][QUOTE]I

would agrewho were investigated should have more weight, for the most part, than those who are modern suspects.

But we have to remember that the Police never solved the case, weren't agreed amongst themselves, and no modern investigators have succeeded in pinning down convincingly any of the favourite suspects of the time. Could it be because none of them were JtR ?

[

QUOTE]For example, Maybrick and Hutchinson who we have absolutely nothing to credit as suspects but surmise[/

Hutchinson has to be a suspect based on more than surmise, and indeed if this were a modern case, he would be a favourite Police suspect, surely ? He was a person identified by both himself and an independent witness as being at the scene of a Ripper crime, in the right time frame, in extremely suspicious
circumstances, and spouting a witness statement which was later discounted by Police themselves -and even discredited by many modern commentators who DON'T believe that he was the killer; He has to be a suspect who is at least as viable as any of the 'official' suspects of the time, and in my opinion, more so..

Next..

Very interested in Mr Hawkley's post...because I firmly believe in the aggressive-narcissitic diagnostic, only I think that it applies to Hutch :

Suspend all your disbelief for a minute and IMAGINE that Hutch was JtR, and
hypothetically apply the criteria for 'aggressive-narcissum' to Hutch's behaviour...

(don't forget -you are 'accepting' -for 5 minutes- that Hutch IS JtR):

This is the Hare Psychopathy checklist for traits of an aggressive narcissist-
1. Glibness/superficial charm

Hutch had enough charm to convince Abberline that he did not fit the image of a sadistic killer.

2.

Grandiose sense of self-worth

Not only was he confident enough in his ability to charm the Police as to his innocence, but he held forth to the Press in ever more detail, and felt able to stride around the East End trying to identify a non-existant 'suspect' accompanied by some policemen, and want paying for it.

3. Pathological lying

He was a confident liar -which suggests past experience.

4. Cunning/manipulative

very cunning and manipulative to walk into the lion's mouth by voluntarily coming forward as a willing witness, ready to undergo interrogation.

5. Lack of remorse or guilt
6. Shallow affect (expressing emotions deceptively)

He was taken to identify MJK's body -and we've seen the photo and reconstruction; He could portray deceptive emotion.

7. Callous/lack of empathy
8. Failure to accept responsibility for own actions

Apllies to Jtr -and of course Hutch didn't break down and confess.

Here are Hotchkiss' seven deadly sins of narcissism-

1. Shamelessness
2. Magical thinking
3. Arrogance

He came forward as a witness and obviously thought that he could blag his wag through an interrogation.

4. Envy
5. Entitlement-DEFIANCE OF THEIR WILL IS A NARCISSISTIC INJURY THAT CAN TRIGGER NARCISSISTIC RAGE

We'll never know -but if he did display hatred of Jews- then these could be the clue to his motivation. Maybe there was something in his past that
triggered a rage against all Jews ...and thus prostitutes who slept with them ?

6. Exploitation
7. Bad boundaries (societal norms do not pertain to them).

AS for Tumblety -nothing that I've read on these forums has convinced me !

[Ben]

“I would agree that the folks who were investigated should have more weight, for the most part, than those who are modern suspects.”

It depends what you mean by “more weight”, Mike. If you mean that certain suspects acquire a greater likelihood of being Jack the Ripper on the basis of having been suspected by a senior official with no experience of serial crime, then I would have to disagree pretty strongly. They are an investigative priority, to be sure, but chiefly to ascertain just why certain police officials exhibited a preference for certain suspects. It certainly doesn’t make them more probable suspects than those with actual connections to the crime or crime scene but who weren't necessarily suspected by contemporary police, and as such, you ought really to have used Maybrick and Sickert as examples of individuals with “absolutely nothing to credit as suspects but surmise”. There is “surmise” is the case of Joseph Fleming, for example, but that surmise is based on a number of compelling factors, and as such, I have no hesitation in describing him as “more likely” have been the murderer than Tumblety.

Hi Mike H,

The point I was making was that any claim on the part of a serial killer to have acted on "voices" from a higher power shouldn’t be treated as gospel for the simple reason that in a large number of cases, the offenders are simply lying in order to be declared insane and thus receive a lighter sentence based on an appeal to diminished responsibility. Similarly, the Sutcliffe claim to have been “clearing up the streets” was almost certainly an attempt to place a more acceptable veneer over the pleasure he clearly derived from committing acts of murder and mutilation. As for “peer reviewed” confirmation, just which journals are claiming that people like Berkowitz really were on a mission from Dog? In addition, I don’t think anyone seriously disputes that the overwhelmingly vast majority of serial killers belong in the category of ”killing for the kicks of it” irrespective of whatever” mission” they claim to have been embarking upon at the time.

There’s no mutual exclusivity, incidentally, between a power motive and a sexual one. They have tended to go hand in hand in the word of serial crime, and it would be quite wrong to state that Gary Ridgway had no sexual motive behind his actions. Again, try to avoid making determinations as to motive on the basis of what the killers themselves have “claimed” because a good deal of the time, they’re simply lying.

“As for you only able to see Tumblety meeting two of the criteria honestly has no bearing upon which criteria Tumblety actually met. Your comment either comes from bias or ignorance”

No, it comes from not really seeing the evidence to force-feed Tumblety into a list of criteria in order to justify the description of him as an “aggressive narcissist”. For example, “lack of remorse or guilt” – not much evidence for, either way. Callous? Nothing really compelling to support that accusation against Tumblety, and I doubt we’ll have any insight as to whether or not he suffered from a “failure to accept responsibility for (his) own actions. If you're truly interested in the views of those with expertise in criminology, as you appear to be, then you'll note that Tumblety was rejected rather quickly by the FBI experts who studied the case.

Best regards,
Ben

[The Good Michael]

It looks like your point, Garry, is that credible ripper research should not take into consideration who Scotland Yard considered serious suspects. Before commenting upon this, I would love to see if anyone else agrees with this conclusion.

mike,

I would agree that the folks who were investigated should have more weight, for the most part, than those who are modern suspects. For example, Maybrick and Hutchinson who we have absolutely nothing to credit as suspects but surmise (that is supposing that the diary isn't real). Even James Kelly seems to have been investigated, though that could be just because of his escape and nothing more.

Cheers,

Mike

[mklhawley]

Not really, Mike. Whatever his identity, the Whitechapel Murderer was a sadistic sexual deviant who derived untold libidinal gratification from the stalking, waylaying, throttling, slashing and evisceration of women, with the abduction of body parts serving only to reinforce the clear sexual dynamics of his crimes. Given that no males were similarly attacked during his operational timeframe, moreover, it may be safely concluded that Jack the Ripper was heterosexual. Naturally, however, if you are able to provide the details of a similar series of crimes perpetrated by a male homosexual, I’d be happy to review your evidence and reconsider my position.

Well Garry, I do not see any serial killer experts use absolutes such as you just did. There is a reason - human motives can rarely be safely concluded as you have safely concluded, since there are multiple motives for serial killers and there are so many exceptions to the rule. Aileen Wuornos, Jeffrey Dahmer, John Wayne Gacy, and Mary Bell were all serial killers that were exceptions to the rule. Of course, if we used the safely concluded method, they were not true serial killers.

Gary Ridgway, the Green River killer, confessed to killing four women, all prostitutes. He claimed his motive for killing them was because he hated prostitutes. Now, if a pathological killer blamed prostitutes for something bad in their life, such as mother's profession, contracting a progressive disease, or the ills of society, their motive for killing prostitutes (as in the case of Ridgway) would not be sexual deviency. Would non-sexual devient killers mutilate their sexual parts? If a killer positively hated prostitutes because of what they do, would it not be logical to attack their sexual organs? Did Jack the Ripper have sex with any of the victims, or did this sexual devient us a knife for his penus? This sounds more like a power motive than a sexual motive, as most experts consider the true motive of most rapists.

"While there is no evidence of any sexual activity with any of the victims, psychologists suppose that the penetration of the victims with a knife and "leaving them on display in sexually degrading positions with the wounds exposed" indicates that the perpetrator derived sexual pleasure from the attacks. This view is challenged by others who dismiss such hypotheses as insupportable supposition." By the way Gary, the experts that disagree with your absolute "sedistic sexual devient" conclusion are Evans and Rumbelow. I'll go with them.



Quote:
AND ALSO Scotland Yard at the time of the murders took Tumblety seriously.


This, Mike, is hardly a compelling argument in favour of Tumblety’s Ripper candidacy, especially when it is remembered that, at the time, Scotland Yard had no experience whatsoever of the sadosexual serial offender. But if you by chance happen to believe that the police are infallible, look into the cases of Tim Evans, Colin Stagg or the Birmingham Six, to cite but three amongst many examples of when the police got it wrong.

Well Garry, keep in mind "sadosexual serial offender" is not a safe conclusion. Where did I say police are infallible? This is clearly a strawman fallacy that you have presented. It looks like your point, Garry, is that credible ripper research should not take into consideration who Scotland Yard considered serious suspects. Before commenting upon this, I would love to see if anyone else agrees with this conclusion.

Sincerely,

Mike

[mklhawley]

Hi Mike,

I'm compelled to ask just which "experts" compartmentalized the motives of serial killers in the manner you described? The vast majority of serial killers who engage in post-mortem, mutilation - particularly of the abdominal region - have been classified as having a sexual motive. Be very wary, in particular, of any "expert" who buys too heartily into the alleged "visionary" or "mission-orientated" motive for serial killers. These excuses for embarking on a serial killing spree are more commonly resorted to by serial killers hoping that a claim of lunacy might reduce their prison sentence. Any "expert" still clinging to the delusion that David Berkowirz really was ordered to kill by his neighbour's dog, for example, is to be avoided.

Incidentally, I can only see Tumblety meeting criteria 1 and 2 of the "Hare Psychopathy checklist".

Best regards,
Ben

Not all serial killers are alike. Regardless of all the similar attributes serial killers share, many experts insist on dividing them into subgroups. Holmes and De Burger (1988) divide serial killers into four categories: visionary, mission-oriented, hedonistic and control-oriented. Visionary serial killers murder in response to voices, or visions urging them to kill. This type of killer is most usually classified as psychotic (Holmes and De Burger, 1988). Some would argue that the psychotic or visionary killer cannot be included in the fantasy-addiction theory, but this is not true. Even though the killer is not in fully conscious control of his personal world, the killer's mind still acts to preserve the fantasy, which in this case is the psychotic delusion. The mission-oriented serial killer has as a goal the elimination of a group or category of people, such as murdering hookers to clean up the city (Holmes & De Burger, 1988). The hedonistic killer is a thrill-seeker, killing for the kicks of it, while the control-oriented killer enjoys the absolute power over the victim (Holmes & De Burger, 1988).

The division that Holmes & De Burger (1988) lay out that is useful is that of the process-focused vs. act-focused killers. The process-focused killer uses more excessive violence, and often engages in dismemberment or abuse of the dead victim (Holmes & De Burger, 1988). Process-focused murderers, then, murder to commit the murder, and not for the end goal of the dead victim. Act-focused killers, on the other hand, murder quickly and efficiently (Holmes & De Burger, 1988). These differentiations are not far off of the FBI's organized/disorganized classification scheme.


c.d.,

It looks like the experts I used were Holmes and De Burger, which is not far off from the FBI's classification scheme. Experts in the field. Are these categories mere opinions or are they based upon data? Well, we can look up their published research, but I do know conclusions in articles accepted in peer reviewed journals are not allowed to be based upon conjecture. My point for you and Zodiac is in order to counter their conclusions, your arguments must also be based upon data. Please post this.

As for you only able to see Tumblety meeting two of the criteria honestly has no bearing upon which criteria Tumblety actually met. Your comment either comes from bias or ignorance. c.d., are you truly serious?

Mike

[mklhawley]

I just got back into town tonight and noticed lots of responses to my posts. Once I read them, I'll respond.

Mike

[Zodiac]

Hi Mike,

I'm compelled to ask just which "experts" compartmentalized the motives of serial killers in the manner you described? The vast majority of serial killers who engage in post-mortem, mutilation - particularly of the abdominal region - have been classified as having a sexual motive. Be very wary, in particular, of any "expert" who buys too heartily into the alleged "visionary" or "mission-orientated" motive for serial killers. These excuses for embarking on a serial killing spree are more commonly resorted to by serial killers hoping that a claim of lunacy might reduce their prison sentence. Any "expert" still clinging to the delusion that David Berkowirz really was ordered to kill by his neighbour's dog, for example, is to be avoided.

Incidentally, I can only see Tumblety meeting criteria 1 and 2 of the "Hare Psychopathy checklist".

Best regards,
Ben

Hi Ben,

An excellent point you make. Peter Sutcliffe, a.k.a. "The Yorkshire Ripper" would use the whole "visionary/mission-orientated" line from his second statement onwards. Yet strangely he made no mention of any such motive in his original statement to the police!? Although he was sentenced to serve life in a maximum security prison, he was soon transferred to a maximum security mental hospital.

Best Wishes,

Zodiac.

[Ben]

Hi Mike,

I'm compelled to ask just which "experts" compartmentalized the motives of serial killers in the manner you described? The vast majority of serial killers who engage in post-mortem, mutilation - particularly of the abdominal region - have been classified as having a sexual motive. Be very wary, in particular, of any "expert" who buys too heartily into the alleged "visionary" or "mission-orientated" motive for serial killers. These excuses for embarking on a serial killing spree are more commonly resorted to by serial killers hoping that a claim of lunacy might reduce their prison sentence. Any "expert" still clinging to the delusion that David Berkowirz really was ordered to kill by his neighbour's dog, for example, is to be avoided.

Incidentally, I can only see Tumblety meeting criteria 1 and 2 of the "Hare Psychopathy checklist".

Best regards,
Ben

[Garry Wroe]

Tumblety may have been bisexual as he said he married and then turned against women because his wife was a prostitute..(according to Dunham who was a bit of a chancer but not always) and okay, T was a liar and chancer but if someone could only find his marriage certificate ...

Even in the event of a marriage certificate being uncovered, Siobhan, it wouldn’t provide proof of Tumblety’s bisexuality. There exist a number of documented examples of Victorian male homosexuals marrying purely for the purpose of masking their true sexual proclivities, to say nothing of several notable modern cases – Rock Hudson, for instance.

If he did marry it would have been probably in Rochester in late 1940s or early 1850s … His potential bisexuality might be relevant. No matter. You've already dismissed him!

That’s hardly fair, Siobhan, since all I did was rebut your clearly flawed assertion that a number of homosexual serialists had killed outside their sexual ingroup. Far from being dismissive, I even went so far as to suggest that your time might be better spent by examining the case of Colin Ireland.

I believe the “Tumblety was a homosexual, thus, is not a viable JTR suspect” argument is missing the point.

Not really, Mike. Whatever his identity, the Whitechapel Murderer was a sadistic sexual deviant who derived untold libidinal gratification from the stalking, waylaying, throttling, slashing and evisceration of women, with the abduction of body parts serving only to reinforce the clear sexual dynamics of his crimes. Given that no males were similarly attacked during his operational timeframe, moreover, it may be safely concluded that Jack the Ripper was heterosexual. Naturally, however, if you are able to provide the details of a similar series of crimes perpetrated by a male homosexual, I’d be happy to review your evidence and reconsider my position.

AND ALSO Scotland Yard at the time of the murders took Tumblety seriously.

This, Mike, is hardly a compelling argument in favour of Tumblety’s Ripper candidacy, especially when it is remembered that, at the time, Scotland Yard had no experience whatsoever of the sadosexual serial offender. But if you by chance happen to believe that the police are infallible, look into the cases of Tim Evans, Colin Stagg or the Birmingham Six, to cite but three amongst many examples of when the police got it wrong.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[Siobhan Patricia Mulcahy]

Well, one thing, that excludes Tumblety as JtR, is; since the descriptions of the eye-witnesses vary pretty lot, the Ripper was obviously rather common looking. Tumblety certainly wasn't!

Hi j.r.,
He admitted in an interview with the New York World in January 1889 that he was dressed down (or did not dress flashily) while in Whitechapel. Who knows why he chose to do that-
The interview he did with the World is mentioned in many posts as the discovery is pretty new - but not yet available in Ripper Media section of Casebook.
Therefore, IT CUDDA BEEN HIM!
Best,
Siobhan

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

They say that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. This is perfectly illustrated by the above posts (30 and 31). The question was asked whether there were examples of Tumblety’s violence. Siobhan responds with this:

There are other examples of Tumblety's violence but here's the last one in his Rap sheet:
1890 (December) Washington – arrested and charged with vicious “assault” - striking a man with the metal top of his walking stick so hard that his “cheekbone was revealed through the skin”. Tumblety is aged 60 by this time. When searched, police discover that Tumblety has thousands of dollars worth of diamond jewellery on his person along with several hundred dollars in cash. Charges dropped. Police explain that the man Tumblety assaulted was even “more suspicious a character” than Tumblety.
This is the last known arrest on record. (from Riordan's book)
If this is how vicious Tumblety was in his 60s, then how vicious or violent was he when he was young?

Mike breathlessly adds that the above “fits the profile” of an aggressive narcissist which he, a non medical man, has come up with using his layman’s limited understanding of psychiatric diagnostics coupled with his imperfect knowledge of, and admitted bias for, Francis Tumblety.

Unfortunately, the above example is filled with errors and the full story edited, apparently, to make it look as if Tumblety was a violent and even viscous man and thus a likely Ripper candidate (What else is new).

The “assault” did not take place “1890 (December) Washington” but on 4 June, 1889, in New York City.

Tumblety was not found with “thousands of dollars worth of diamond jewellery on his person along with several hundred dollars in cash.” This is a confusion with Tumblety’s arrest in Washington DC on 17 November (again, not December) as a suspicious person (he was released the very next day).

Tumblety was arrested for assaulting one “George Davis,” of 168 Allen Street, New York City, with his cane, this much is true, but Tumblety (who was probably trying to pick “Davis” up) stated that “Davis” had demanded money and then grabbed him, attempting to rob him of his watch. Forced to protect himself, the 60 year old Tumblety hit “Davis” in the face with his cane, breaking the handle and cutting “Davis.” At this point “Davis” slashed, or stabbed Tumblety in the right hand with a knife or other sharp object.

The commotion drew a policeman and both men were arrested and taken to the station. Both men were locked up but, for reasons that are unclear, Tumblety was charged with assaulting Davis. Both men were soon released, Tumblety on $300 bail, and the doctor was ordered to appear in front of Judge Gildersleeve in Part 1 of the Court of General Sessions, New York, on the 24th of June. However, when the police attempted to subpoena “Davis” to appear as the complainant in the trial it was discovered that no one named “George Davis” was living, or had ever lived, at 168 Allen Street and, later, that the name “George Davis” was a fake.

At this point investigators from the District Attorney’s Office were forced to look into the matter and they eventually discovered that the missing man’s name was actually George Becker, that he was known to the police and that he had a bad character.

The investigation found that Becker was a liar and perjurer and that Tumblety’s version of events was the more believable story. The assistant District Attorney was then forced to make this statement before the trial had even started:
“A thorough examination of this case has satisfied me that the complainant (Davis/Becker) cannot be believed under oath. My report shows that he has made false statements in the station-house, in the Police Court and before me. His own statement before me stamps him as a shiftless, wayward young man, and the circumstances under which he lived when the assault took place strongly support the positive and plausible statement of the defendant (Tumblety)."

The charges against Tumblety were dismissed and he was released.

So here is the (unedited) story as found by the District Attorneys Office: A 60 year old man, who is forced to defend himself after an assault, involving a knife, and attempted robbery, strikes his attacker with his cane. Not quite the picture of the “violent” and “viscous” Tumblety, who “fits the profile,” that the denizens of Tumblety World want everyone to believe.

Wolf.

[c.d.]

Hi Mike,

I mean no disrespect to you but I think that trying to assign a psychological label to a suspect is about as useful as trying to ascertain whether they were born a Gemini or a Taurus.

c.d.

[mklhawley]

Hi Mike,

It would seem that George Chapman would fit that profile as well. They certainly are not unique characteristics.

c.d.

Very true c.d.

[c.d.]

Hi Mike,

It would seem that George Chapman would fit that profile as well. They certainly are not unique characteristics.

c.d.