The 'argument AGAINST Tumblety' debate thread

[protohistorian]

On Ben's point, it has been demonstrated that these focus type scenarios emerge much more frequently in the post capture and pre-trial period of time in modern serials. While not direct evidence it certainly hints at exactly what Ben was alluding to. Dave

[Garry Wroe]

In an earlier post, Mike, I wrote:-

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.

To which you responded:-

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.

As a psychologist, Mike, I am relatively well-versed in the subtleties of human thought and behaviour. Hence my conclusions on the psychopathology of the Whitechapel Murderer are based upon a combination of robust empirical data and several decades of studying the Ripper-type offender. But more of that presently.

You responded to:-

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.

With:-

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.

Wuornos was not a male homosexual. Dahmer was but preyed exclusively on men. Gacy was bisexual and Mary Bell was not a serial killer.

By the way Gary, the experts that disagree with your absolute "sedistic sexual devient" conclusion are Evans and Rumbelow. I'll go with them.

Be my guest, Mike. But is it mere coincidence that your repeated use of the word ‘expert’ is applied only to those whose opinions appear to lend support to your perceptions concerning the killer and his motivations?

Well Garry, keep in mind "sadosexual serial offender" is not a safe conclusion.

Since I disagree, Mike, let’s look at a case that bears a number of striking parallels with the Whitechapel Murders. Peter Sutcliffe, as I’m sure you are aware, killed or attempted to kill at least twenty-one women before his eventual arrest in the early Eighties, a number of whom were streetwalkers. When the case went to trial, three eminent psychiatrists (experts) attested that Sutcliffe had developed an irrational hatred of prostitutes and, under the supposed command of God, had embarked on a ‘mission’ to exterminate them. Unfortunately for these ‘experts’, however, the evidence told an entirely different story. Sutcliffe, for example, had engaged in sex with the dying body of Helen Rytka. After inflicting nine hammer blows to the head of another victim, Sutcliffe interrupted the attack, unzipped himself and began masturbating feverishly. Upon arrest, moreover, he was found to be wearing beneath his trousers a modified pair of women’s tights. Protective padding had been sewn into the knees and the crotch area had been deliberately cut away to enable Sutcliffe ready access to his genitalia during the assaults.

Contrary to the ‘expert’ opinion, therefore, Sutcliffe’s crimes had nothing whatever to do with a ‘mission from God’ nor an irrational hatred of streetwalkers. They were sexually motivated offences of a type which fall into the category of the paraphilias. And having spent decades studying such men, I’ve yet to come across a single case that was not similarly motivated.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[Fisherman]

Garry Wroe writes:

"Contrary to the ‘expert’ opinion, therefore, Sutcliffe’s crimes had nothing whatever to do with a ‘mission from God’ nor an irrational hatred of streetwalkers. They were sexually motivated offences of a type which fall into the category of the paraphilias. And having spent decades studying such men, I’ve yet to come across a single case that was not similarly motivated."

I have a lot of respect for your experience in this field, Garry, and what you say makes a lot of sense as far as I can judge. But I would like to ask you about other crimes than those concerning paraphilias.
We sometimes read about strange, seemingly meaningless deeds, where people kill or hurt victims that are in no way connected to them, and afterwards claim that they "heard voices inside their heads" or something along those lines. Maybe Mark David Chapman can function as an example - he claimed something like this lay behind his slaying of John Lennon, did he not?

Working from the assumption that deeds like these do not have a built-in element of sexuality, how would you judge them? Can we in these cases dismiss the assertions about having been guided by some external will?

If we allow for an "external guiding", if you will, in such cases or indeed in any case at all - then does that not mean that we may have to accept that seemingly sexually oriented killers also could have a potentionally fair case for having followed another will than their own?

Or should we never allow for these kinds of claims? Are they always a bacon-saving smokescreen?

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

People in that era misunderstood unconventional sex lives and imagined all sorts of insane or violent perversions below the surface.

Spot on, Caz.

We need only consider the wayward and outdated view of Inspector Littlechild that those with a "contrary sexual instinct" are more prone to cruelty for a particularly glaring example of the phenomenon you describe.

And as you correctly observe, Dave, the excuses serial killers provide for having done the dirty are almost invariably offered post-capture.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

"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!?

Absolutely, Zodiac.

Clearly, the "motive" changed once Sutcliffe recognized the benefits of a mental institution over a maximum security prison!

Besr regards,
Ben

[mklhawley]

Sorry Garry,

I'm sticking with Evans and Rumbelow.

Mike

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Hi Mike.

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

Like Roy, I, too, have never heard this before and am also wondering where this information comes from.

Wolf.

[mklhawley]

Hi Mike.



Like Roy, I, too, have never heard this before and am also wondering where this information comes from.

Wolf.

Hi Wolf,

I've been reading your The New York Affair on Carrie Brown. A brilliant piece of work.


In the case of Tumblety's progressive illness, I was merely talking about what Tumblety wrote in his autobiography:

"About this period (1862 [or 1863]) I experienced a decline of health of an alarming character..."

http://casebook.org/ripper_media/rps.tumblety.1872_book.html

I realize it says nothing about a "progressive illness", but things seems to go down hill after that, and we do know he died of some type of complications. If it needs to be corrected by you, I have zero issues with that.

Sincerely,

Mike

[mklhawley]

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



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.


Love,

Caz
X

“What I did was not for sexual pleasure. Rather it brought me some peace of mind." - Andrei Chikatilo


"The women I killed were filth-bastard prostitutes who were littering the streets. I was just cleaning up the place a bit." -Peter Sutcliffe

I agree that each of the murders I committed was part of a 'common scheme or plan.' The plan was I wanted to kill as many women I thought were prostitutes as I possibly could. I picked prostitutes as my victims because I hate most prostitutes and I did not want to pay them for sex. I also picked prostitutes as victims because they were easy to pick up without being noticed. I knew they would not be reported missing right away, and might never be reported missing. I picked prostitutes because I thought I could kill as many of them as I wanted without getting caught -Gary Ridgeway


"I did this not as a sex act . . . but out of hate for her. I don't mean out of hate for her in particular, really i mean out of hate for a woman." -Albert Desalvo

"One side of me says, 'I'd like to talk to her, date her.' The other side of me says, 'I wonder how her head would look on a stick?'" – Edmund Kemper

"You feel the last bit of breath leaving their body. You're looking into their eyes. A person in that situation is God!" -Ted Bundy


Hi Caz,

I believe we have a couple of issues going on. First, what was JTR's true motive? Some believe JTR was a sexual devient. He may have been but just as the above quotes suggest by other serial killers, his motive just might have been something entirely different. If you recall with Mary Kelly's murder (with all the time JTR had with her), he only took the heart. A strange act for a sexual devient. This beggars belief on a masterbatory trophy. Recall there is a theory that a heart trophy might be something connected to the Bible.

Second, if Tumblety was JTR, then what was his motive? IMHO, it was not sexual deviency, so arguing about whether a gay serial killer kills women is not so important. There are other motives that fit Tumblety. Chief Inspector Anderson contacted Chiefs of Police in San Francisco and Brooklyn about Francis Tumblety. For some reason, Scotland Yard took Tumblety seriously at the peak of the investigation when they had the most evidence/ideas. A couple of weeks ago, I started a thread on the Scotland Yard detective in New York watching him. Did the papers lie about that?

Third, did Scotland Yard arrest Tumblety on gross indecency charges and then consider him a JTR suspect because he was a homosexual? Your "unconventional sex lives" paragraph suggests this, because it seems you believe Scotland Yard considered Tumblety a suspect because of his sexual preference. I question this and suggest Tumblety had caught the eye of Scotland Yard for other reasons. Roger Palmer is making a convincing argument that the gross indecency charges were put on Tumblety in the hopes of jailing him for awhile in order to have time to dig deep into Tumblety's past, as Scotland Yard did on numberous occasions with other serious suspects (of different cases).

Just some thoughts.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Garry Wroe]

If we allow for an "external guiding", if you will, in such cases or indeed in any case at all - then does that not mean that we may have to accept that seemingly sexually oriented killers also could have a potentionally fair case for having followed another will than their own?

Or should we never allow for these kinds of claims? Are they always a bacon-saving smokescreen?

Richard Trenton Chase was one such killer, Fish, and I outlined his case in my book should you care to read up on it. Essentially, though, such men are psychotic and thus lack the intellectual clarity that might enable them to plan and execute their crimes with any degree of cohesion. It is for this reason that the FBI categorize the Chase-like offender as ‘disorganized.’ Ed Gein, who provided the psychological template for the film Psycho, represents another example of the disorganized offender, as does Albert Fish, alias the Brooklyn Vampire. Indeed, the extent of Fish’s mental dislocation was such that his trial was interrupted repeatedly as officials fought an ongoing battle to prevent him from masturbating in open court.

Accordingly, there is no shortage of offenders who have committed murder and similarly serious crimes whilst afflicted by one of the psychoses – more often than not paranoid schizophrenia. If FBI estimates are to be taken as reliable, approximately one-third of all serialists in the USA fall into the disorganized category. Again, though, offences of this nature are the product of a disordered mind and are easily recognizable as such. Thus, in view of a combination of the clear planning that went into the Whitechapel Murders and the control the killer exerted over his victims and crime scenes, we may be absolutely certain that Jack the Ripper was not a disorganized offender. This is not to suggest that he would have been ‘normal’ by clinical standards, merely that his crime-related behaviour was not a function of the aural or visual hallucinations which motivated the likes of Gein, Fish and Chase.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[mklhawley]

Garry,

Your book sounds very interesting. Is it available online?

Sincerely,

Mike

[Fisherman]

Garry Wroe writes:

" there is no shortage of offenders who have committed murder and similarly serious crimes whilst afflicted by one of the psychoses ..."

... and ...

"... in view of a combination of the clear planning that went into the Whitechapel Murders and the control the killer exerted over his victims and crime scenes, we may be absolutely certain that Jack the Ripper was not a disorganized offender."

... and ...

"his crime-related behaviour was not a function of the aural or visual hallucinations which motivated the likes of Gein, Fish and Chase."

Okay, Garry - thanks for this. My own take on things is that our man seems more organized than disorganized - but I would not go as far as to say that we can be certain of it. Many researchers and experts have spoken of both kinds of traits being present in his deeds. I think we have far too little on our hands to allow ourselves any unhesitating conclusion, although I can easily see your reasoning and the logic that lies behind it.

Of course, what I was after with my initial question was whether we have people acting on what they perceive as an external influence, and you seem to allow for this. I mentioned Chapman, and I think that he is a good example of somebody who seemed rational enough up to the point where he shot Lennon. Therefore, though I am not a schooled psychologist like you, I feel that it would be dangerous to draw a line where we totally exclude a person that seems quite rational and who functions in society from the possibility of inflicting sexually connected harm as the result of what is perceived as an external influence. In this context I of course speak of "sexually connected harm" in the broad sense, as something that society in general - but not necessarily the culprit - would recognize as relating to sex.

Itīs another thing altogether that I would - of course - readily agree that the overwhelming majority of sexually oriented sadists kill because they feel like it. And indeed, I can give no example of any case where this does not apply. So the question seems to be whether we can ascribe Jack to this group with absolute certainty, and I guess we simply differ when it comes to making that call.

I find your group of deranged sexual serialists interesting, since I always believed that Fish was rather a planning character, involved in newspaper ads and luring away his victims. I remember reading about that little girl he killed, how he sent her to pick flowers while he himself got up into the room of - was it "Wisteria Lodge...? - and undressed in order not to stain himself when killing her. That does not sound very disorganized to me, so it would be interesting to hear you expand on your thoughts here, if you would care to do so.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

He may have been but just as the above quotes suggest by other serial killers, his motive just might have been something entirely different.

As I mentioned before, Mike, the serial killers themselves are often the least reliable sources for the motives behind their actions. All too often, they attempt to convince their captors that their motivation for committing theirs crimes was les sordid and self-serving than it actually was. Child killers, in particular, will often claim that the victim was "bothering" them, and that this, rather than sexual depravity, triggered their actions. The vast majority of serial killers who engage in post-mortem mutilation have been classified, by those with considerable expertise on the subject, as having had a sexual motive, which is inextricably linked to the sensation of power and dominance.

Best regards,
Ben

[mklhawley]

Quit making sense Ben!

[Garry Wroe]

I find your group of deranged sexual serialists interesting, since I always believed that Fish was rather a planning character, involved in newspaper ads and luring away his victims. I remember reading about that little girl he killed, how he sent her to pick flowers while he himself got up into the room of - was it "Wisteria Lodge...? - and undressed in order not to stain himself when killing her. That does not sound very disorganized to me, so it would be interesting to hear you expand on your thoughts here, if you would care to do so.

Tellingly, Fisherman, much of the detail relating to Fish’s crimes was communicated by Fish himself, so we have no way of determining the veracity of those claims. Indisputably, however, Fish walked into Grace Budd’s home and interacted with several family members for the purpose of procuring a victim. Since such a strategy entailed an extraordinarily high risk of subsequent identification, it does appear somewhat at odds with Fish’s forensic concerns over a few bloodstains several hours later.

But then why would there have been bloodstaining at all? What was to prevent Fish from first killing Grace by way of manual strangulation and then either undressing or changing into a pair of protective overalls preparatory to the dissection process? Had Fish adopted this approach, there would have been no need to send Grace off to pick flowers (where she might have been sighted by eyewitnesses), and no need for the cries of alarm when Grace entered the house only to be confronted by a naked Albert Fish. Not only was all of this unnecessary from a practical standpoint, it was risky to the point of recklessness.

With respect, therefore, Fisherman, 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.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.