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 itīs 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]

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

.

I don't like to say it Fish -but this is surmising..

You didn't answer the rest of the Post but Hutch's personality, and the way
the Police reacted to it, must have played a huge part; supposition too, of course.

So we are left with the facts -already stated (right place, right time, dodgy story) which make him ainportant candidate.

But no more Hutch...back to TUMBLETY

[Fisherman]

Ruby writes:

"I don't like to say it Fish -but this is surmising.."

Absolutely, Ruby. And we actually MUST surmise that SOMETHING happened that cooled the tip of the century off, down to a distinctly icy temperature.
If you take a closer look at what I wrote, you will also find that I presented only an example of what may have happened. I could have chosen other examples, of course, but my own feeling - as I have stated on the boards before - is that the press felt may have felt that they had been made out to look like fools, and therefore reacted by gleaning as little as possible about what it was that made them discount Hutch. I am a newspaperman myself, and I am familiar with the reaction.

"You didn't answer the rest of the Post but Hutch's personality, and the way the Police reacted to it"

No. Nor will I do so now, since I only wanted to point out to you that however the police felt about Hutch from the outset and whatever type of person he was, his story was water under the bridge soon enough, in spite of what could have seemed very good reason to investigate him further. And that is where we must allow us to suppose.

"no more Hutch...back to TUMBLETY"

Splendid idea - it is his thread, after all!

The best,
Fisherman

[mklhawley]

“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.”

Hi Ben,

Sorry about calling you c.d. It was late when I was responding. I also want to apologize about sounding like I know more about the JTR case than you or c.d., which is far from the truth. I have been heavily involved in Tumblety research for the last six months, so I believe I can challenge some of your comments in this area. I have received multiple PMs from quite experienced ripperologists on Casebook (not all endorse Tumblety as JTR, but agree that he was an aggressive narcissist) believing I am spot on with the aggressive narcissist issue, so I of course disagree with the claim of force-feeding Tumblety into it. For example, I think everyone agrees Tumblety was a charlatan, sometimes making between $100 and $300 per day on scamming the public. Recall that $400 was the annual salary of a Scotland Yard inspector in 1888. Tumblety would set up an herb shop in a city, make serious money from people without any remorse or guilt, and once he got into trouble for one reason or another, he had to skip town or even skip the country. In order to be so successful in a scam business, one needs to be uncaring and callous for those he is exploiting. Recall the case in Montreal before moving to Brooklyn. He took no responsibility for his actions.

Sincerely,

Mike

[c.d.]

Hi Mike,

Let's assume for the sake of argument that Tumblety was an aggressive narcissist. What conclusion can we draw from that? That all aggressive narcissists are serial killers? Are there any a.g.'s who are not serial killers? Has there ever been a serial killer who has a psychological profile that differs from an a.g.? Even if we can conclude that people with certain psychological profiles tend to act in certain ways it does not mean that they do so with absolute consistency.

c.d.

[mklhawley]

Hi Mike,

Let's assume for the sake of argument that Tumblety was an aggressive narcissist. What conclusion can we draw from that? That all aggressive narcissists are serial killers? Are there any a.g.'s who are not serial killers? Has there ever been a serial killer who has a psychological profile that differs from an a.g.? Even if we can conclude that people with certain psychological profiles tend to act in certain ways it does not mean that they do so with absolute consistency.

c.d.

Hi c.d.,

When I first read about aggressive narcissists, I was personally amazed at the similarities. What I consider significant about this is it opens up possible motives as Tumblety being a killer. In my view, if JTR was merely a sexual devient, it puts Tumblety on shaky ground as being JTR. We know he loved young men, which is where his sexual desires would point to. Caring nothing about victims and having a self-centered motive other than sexual deviency, such as hatred of prostitutes, just might put Tumblety over the edge. In 1863, Tumblety contracted a progressive disease, quite possibly some type of STD and may very well have blamed others for this. Why is hatred of women or prostitutes important? In Roger Palmer's part two article, he clearly shows Tumblety was known for a hatred of women much earlier than Colonel Dunham's (Conover) interview. Littlechild certainly commented upon it.

I'll talk more later.

Sincerely,

Mike

[c.d.]

Hi Mike,

Well here is the problem as I see it. If we take all the known suspects and assign a probable psychological profile for them, it would be quite easy to then look at that profile and assign a possible motive for them. In other words, somebody with a completely different profile other than an a.g. could have a very valid reason for becoming a serial killer.

As for Tumblety's hatred of women, where does that come from? Most likely Tumblety himself and we know that much of what he said was pure B.S. And as I have said before, it provides him with a perfect excuse for not being seen in the company of women. So I can't really put a lot of stock in that.

c.d.

[Abby Normal]

I thought I would start a thread for us all to debate the negative side of Tumbety's candicacy as the Ripper. He seems to have a lot of positive things going for him as a suspect but lets take the time to discuss the AGAINST arguments and points.

One of the main points I take into account is Tumblety's appearance, age and sexual preference. Being 56 years old, standing over six foot and the huge flamboyant moustache he possessed is one of the strongest things against him being the murderer in my opinion, not to mention that he was gay. These murders were clearly sexually motivated as far as I can see and I think we are ultimately dealing with a hetrosexual killer.

Anyone got anything else to add? Does the case against Tumblety rely heavily on press reports that may have not been even true? Was there any confirmation of what the press reported?

1. IMHO too old, large and ostentatious and of course, that mustache. Does not really fit any witness description. Of note- none of the witnesses describes a man with an American accent.

2. Sexual orientation does not match victims.

3. Did not know geography/lay out of WC well enough. I don't think I have seen this reason (to rule him out) come up before, but I think JtR had to know the streets of WC like the back of his hand. Could Tumblety?

[mklhawley]

Hi Mike,

Well here is the problem as I see it. If we take all the known suspects and assign a probable psychological profile for them, it would be quite easy to then look at that profile and assign a possible motive for them. In other words, somebody with a completely different profile other than an a.g. could have a very valid reason for becoming a serial killer.

As for Tumblety's hatred of women, where does that come from? Most likely Tumblety himself and we know that much of what he said was pure B.S. And as I have said before, it provides him with a perfect excuse for not being seen in the company of women. So I can't really put a lot of stock in that.

c.d.

Hi c.d.,

We are in agreement here. My whole point is to not reject a suspect because of motive when we truly do not know what JTR's motive was. If you go back to one my earliest threads, it was to demonstrate psychological profiles are suspect. Stewart Evans even commented on it.

The San Francisco Examiner, November 22, 1888 - [San Francisco Chief of Police Crowley states] "...and in New York his behavior was that of a man that had no liking for women." Not only is this comment before Colonel Dunham's interview, it came from the Chief of Police who had a conversation with Scotland Yard about Francis Tumblety in reference to the Whitechapel murders. It was at the time when Scotland Yard had a warrent out for his arrest. Recall that Littlechild stated Tumblety's hatred was bitter to the extreme. Where I believe his hatred of women comes into play is that Scotland Yard was hot on his trail partly for this reason.

Also, recall that pathological liar is one of the traits of an aggressive narcissist, which you seem to agree with. The problem with your belief that he just lied outright does not fit his extremely good charlatan skills. Remember, he made a fortune. Just like Colonel Dunham, Tumblety only lied when there was plausible deniability. Recall that he admitted being in the Whitechapel districts during the time of the murders. Why would he lie about that? If you read his autobiography, you will see this technique used over and over.

Sincerely,

Mike

[c.d.]

Hi Mike,

But what about his alleged hatred of women simply being away to cover his homosexuality? Surely that has to be a valid reason does it not?

c.d.

[Ben]

I was responding. I also want to apologize about sounding like I know more about the JTR case than you or c.d

No worries, Mike - you didn't come across that way at all.

One thing to bear in mind with regard to the issue of Tumblety's medical credentials is that herbal and "root" cures were not generally considered outlandish or associated with abject "quackery" in 1888 to the extent that they are today. As such, we cannot say with any degree of certain that Tumblety sold medical cures which he knew to be absolutely worthless, for the same reason that we cannot accuse Victorian purveyors of occultism of promulgating theories that they knew, deep down, to be fraudulent. It's one thing to observe that Tumblety sold "medical" products of highly dubious healing properties, but quite another to accuse him of callous, uncaring aggressive narcissism. There's a large yawning chasm between the two.

Best regards,
Ben

[c.d.]

Hi Ben,

Your point is a good one and could explain why the authorities considered him to be a doctor (and thus suspicious on that point alone) regardless of his credentials.

c.d.

[mklhawley]

Hi Ben,

Your point is a good one and could explain why the authorities considered him to be a doctor (and thus suspicious on that point alone) regardless of his credentials.

c.d.

Ben/c.d.,

It's interesting that both of you are talking about this particular issue. I found a big medical article discussing the Victorian Age medical battle between "modern' medical proceedures and quack doctors. Their primary example is none other than Francis Tumblety. Thanks both of you.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Roy Corduroy]

Good evening Mike,

In 1863, Tumblety contracted a progressive disease, quite possibly some type of STD...

I didn't know that. What is the source for this information, please?

Roy

[caz]

Was it not more likely that if he picked up an STD it was from a rent boy? He was a promiscuous gay.

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.

Excellent post, Ben.

I was planning one along the same lines before I read yours, but you've expressed it far better than I could have done.

If old Tumblebum was a scrupulous fancy dresser and woman "hater" (ie woman avoider) in the bedroom department, it almost beggars belief that he would have had a shortlived, but furiously concentrated hands-on penchant for grubbing about in menopausal women's innards. IMHO there is zero chance (or evidence) of a womb-collecting motive beyond a very temporary masturbatory trophy. And that doesn't fit with what we know about Dr T's tastes at all.

People in that era misunderstood unconventional sex lives and imagined all sorts of insane or violent perversions below the surface. Tumblebum provided the kind of sore thumb presence that stuck out and practically demanded that he be treated as a potential ripper suspect. And he eventually provided the perfect sacrificial lamb, in the form of Dr T, to dangle in front of Sims when he was getting too near the risky Dr D theory and Monty's well-connected and influential family. No danger whatsoever in naming the fall guy Tumblebum as a very likely suspect.

Looks like Sims didn't fall for it though.

To Rubyretro,

At least people are using known or alleged facts about Tumblety when trying on this thread to classify him as the type to commit serial murder. If you can only classify GH as the type by presuming he walked bold as brass and guilty as sin into the cop shop, so you can make a list of what this would show about his behaviour and underlying motives, it's a completely circular and meaningless exercise. None of what you posted about him would apply if he was just a wholly unreliable witness.

Love,

Caz
X