Tweet
Wolf V., I will be the death of you, but Dr. T is so much fun to work on I could not help myself. I promise I will not push his JTR suspect status.
I would like to revisit the Colonel Dunham interview in The New York World on Dec 1, 1888. It clearly convinced the public of two things about Francis Tumblety in 1888, his extreme hatred of woman and him having a collection of uterus specimens. Both made Tumblety a serious JTR suspect in the eyes of many people. Later research revealed that Colonel Dunham had a few things in common with Francis Tumblety; he was a liar, cheat, and scam artist. It was now a convincing position that not only Tumblety being a woman-hater and having a collection of uterus specimens was made up but also that the Washington D.C. meeting most likely did not take place. To top it off, the deceptive Dunham received a little pocket money for the interview and he also received some welcomed national attention (which points directly to motive for crafting such a tale).
Carman Cumming is the author of Devil’s game: the Civil War Intrigues of Charles A. Dunham, the same Dunham that claimed to have met with Francis Tumblety in Washington D.C. According to Cumming, “Colonel” Dunham (Sandford Conover, George Margrave, and seven other alter egos) was “a genius in the black arts of false information and dirty tricks”. He was a chameleon who was a master at writing and speaking. Time and time again, acquaintances considered him “not only credible but convincing”. He was not entirely full of lies, though. According to Cumming, the effectiveness of Dunham’s deceptions was because he mixed them with truths and actual events. Cumming states, “…he was careful to qualify his observations, to strengthen his credibility…about things that could be checked…”
Did Dunham actually meet with Francis Tumblety in Washington D.C.?
According to Cumming, when the Civil War broke out in 1861, Dunham actually attempted to raise a New York regiment, named the Cameron Legion, and it was officially listed as a New York regiment. He then went to Washington D.C. with this information in order to procure a regiment, and he actually received a War Department endorsement (he even met with the President!). Nothing came of it, but he certainly introduced himself as “Colonel” Dunham after this time. This Washington visit was at the time of the Union’s July 21, 1861, defeat at Bull Run. According to The New World December 1888 Tumblety interview, he claims to have met Tumblety in Washington just after the Bull Run incident, which conforms to his Washington visit. According to Joe Chetcuti, “Tim [Riordan] once located a document in the British National Archives that was written in the penmanship of Dr. Tumblety's attorney. The document was a petition presented to the British Joint Claims Commission, and it declared that Tumblety's official residency in Washington DC commenced on April 13, 1861.”
My contention is that Dunham actually did meet with Tumblety in the summer of 1861. Not only were both parties in Washington at this time but it also matches Dunham’s deceptive MO of mixing lies with truths. He would not have taken the chance of Tumblety later retorting with a convincing alibi of never meeting him. It makes no sense to me that Dunham would bring attention to himself with a nationally publicized interview by lying about “things that could be checked”. Also, Francis Tumblety later published, A Sketch of the Life of Francis Tumblety, in 1893 for the sole purpose of clearing his name. In it, he never mentions the Colonel Dunham interview, an interview that dealt a deathblow to Tumblety’s already hurting reputation. If Tumblety and Dunham never met, wouldn’t it make sense for Tumblety to point that out?
Did Dunham make up the woman-hater feelings about Francis Tumblety?
The New York World article dated November 26, 1888, that Chris Scott posted comments upon Tumblety being a known woman hater, and this article PREDATES The New York World article interview with Colonel Dunham on December 1, 1888. In the November 26 article, the reporter asks a Tumblety acquaintance, William Carr, “"Did you ever hear that he had an aversion to women?" The interviewer must have known about this incriminating claim and was attempting to confirm it with Carr. Also, this conforms to ex-Chief Inspector Littlechild’s 1913 comments that Tumblety's "feelings towards women were remarkable and bitter in the extreme, a fact on record." Because of these facts, I am confident Dunham did not make up Tumblety’s hatred of women, but instead used this “already known” information to add credibility to his deceptive story.
Did Dunham make up the uterus collection story?
It’s my belief that this part of the story could not be checked up on, so Dunham most likely practiced the black art of false information. It seems obvious he was aware of Colonel Hughes-Hallett’s interview a few months earlier with The New York World, in which he makes a connection between Jack the Ripper and collecting uterus specimens.
Sincerely,
Mike
I would like to revisit the Colonel Dunham interview in The New York World on Dec 1, 1888. It clearly convinced the public of two things about Francis Tumblety in 1888, his extreme hatred of woman and him having a collection of uterus specimens. Both made Tumblety a serious JTR suspect in the eyes of many people. Later research revealed that Colonel Dunham had a few things in common with Francis Tumblety; he was a liar, cheat, and scam artist. It was now a convincing position that not only Tumblety being a woman-hater and having a collection of uterus specimens was made up but also that the Washington D.C. meeting most likely did not take place. To top it off, the deceptive Dunham received a little pocket money for the interview and he also received some welcomed national attention (which points directly to motive for crafting such a tale).
Carman Cumming is the author of Devil’s game: the Civil War Intrigues of Charles A. Dunham, the same Dunham that claimed to have met with Francis Tumblety in Washington D.C. According to Cumming, “Colonel” Dunham (Sandford Conover, George Margrave, and seven other alter egos) was “a genius in the black arts of false information and dirty tricks”. He was a chameleon who was a master at writing and speaking. Time and time again, acquaintances considered him “not only credible but convincing”. He was not entirely full of lies, though. According to Cumming, the effectiveness of Dunham’s deceptions was because he mixed them with truths and actual events. Cumming states, “…he was careful to qualify his observations, to strengthen his credibility…about things that could be checked…”
Did Dunham actually meet with Francis Tumblety in Washington D.C.?
According to Cumming, when the Civil War broke out in 1861, Dunham actually attempted to raise a New York regiment, named the Cameron Legion, and it was officially listed as a New York regiment. He then went to Washington D.C. with this information in order to procure a regiment, and he actually received a War Department endorsement (he even met with the President!). Nothing came of it, but he certainly introduced himself as “Colonel” Dunham after this time. This Washington visit was at the time of the Union’s July 21, 1861, defeat at Bull Run. According to The New World December 1888 Tumblety interview, he claims to have met Tumblety in Washington just after the Bull Run incident, which conforms to his Washington visit. According to Joe Chetcuti, “Tim [Riordan] once located a document in the British National Archives that was written in the penmanship of Dr. Tumblety's attorney. The document was a petition presented to the British Joint Claims Commission, and it declared that Tumblety's official residency in Washington DC commenced on April 13, 1861.”
My contention is that Dunham actually did meet with Tumblety in the summer of 1861. Not only were both parties in Washington at this time but it also matches Dunham’s deceptive MO of mixing lies with truths. He would not have taken the chance of Tumblety later retorting with a convincing alibi of never meeting him. It makes no sense to me that Dunham would bring attention to himself with a nationally publicized interview by lying about “things that could be checked”. Also, Francis Tumblety later published, A Sketch of the Life of Francis Tumblety, in 1893 for the sole purpose of clearing his name. In it, he never mentions the Colonel Dunham interview, an interview that dealt a deathblow to Tumblety’s already hurting reputation. If Tumblety and Dunham never met, wouldn’t it make sense for Tumblety to point that out?
Did Dunham make up the woman-hater feelings about Francis Tumblety?
The New York World article dated November 26, 1888, that Chris Scott posted comments upon Tumblety being a known woman hater, and this article PREDATES The New York World article interview with Colonel Dunham on December 1, 1888. In the November 26 article, the reporter asks a Tumblety acquaintance, William Carr, “"Did you ever hear that he had an aversion to women?" The interviewer must have known about this incriminating claim and was attempting to confirm it with Carr. Also, this conforms to ex-Chief Inspector Littlechild’s 1913 comments that Tumblety's "feelings towards women were remarkable and bitter in the extreme, a fact on record." Because of these facts, I am confident Dunham did not make up Tumblety’s hatred of women, but instead used this “already known” information to add credibility to his deceptive story.
Did Dunham make up the uterus collection story?
It’s my belief that this part of the story could not be checked up on, so Dunham most likely practiced the black art of false information. It seems obvious he was aware of Colonel Hughes-Hallett’s interview a few months earlier with The New York World, in which he makes a connection between Jack the Ripper and collecting uterus specimens.
Sincerely,
Mike
Comment