Tumblety and Pinkerton

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Wolf,

Can you tell me what else Palmer wrote about this during this discussion? I remember some of it, as, I’m sure others who were involved do, but all I have to post is one paragraph of one of his posts. What else did he say?

All I can remember of the discussion is that at least one other poster -and I can"t remember his or her name ,was emphatic that Tumblety was a"woman hater"and that this was widely spoken of at the time [1888].In response I think it was Ap who produced a poem Tumblety had written to one lady praising her character quite effusively ,illustrating that the theory that Tumblety "hated all women" was likely to have been a lot of biased Victorian nonsense about gay men.Indeed given the vicious prejudices that existed at the time * about gay men,any homosexual man appears to have been viewed as capable of all kinds of atrocities,particularly vicious crimes against women since it was believed that all homosexual men hated women.
But I am sorry that I can"t remember more of the discussion than that,and I can"t remember whether RJ Palmer indicated one way or another whether he agreed with Roy Hazlewood's assertions--which to me seem ridiculous and baseless.
Norma
* I am thinking here of the vicious court case brought by the homophobic Marquis of Queensberry against Oscar Wilde which resulted in him being sent to prison.

[Jonathan H]

Yes, Wolf, even in your 'joke' you reveal yourself.

That adults are an elite who know it all, and children have nothing to contribute and should shut their mouths.

[Supe]

Jonathan,

Don't get upset. As you have doubtless discovered, there are posters who, lacking anything substantive to say, can only aim blows below the belt, in this instance trying to smear R.J. Palmer as a homophobe. Of course, you and I know full well why some would like to blacken R.J.'s reputation. Just hold your nose and try to ignore.

Don.

[mariab]

Natalie Severn wrote:
I can"t remember whether RJ Palmer indicated one way or another whether he agreed with Roy Hazlewood's assertions--which to me seem ridiculous and baseless.
I don't really wish to interfere with the discussion (as a newbie, plus I still haven't found the time to read R.J. Palmer's Part 3 in Examiner 4, though I'm very much looking forward to it), but I've read Roy Hazelwood's book and it's nothing to write home about. Very biased and inconsequential, has been criticized by serious professionals both for his misleading statistical “research“ and cookie-cutter so-called “psychoanalytical“ profiles of sadists.

[caz]

Hi All,

Surely it all depends on whether RJ is trying to build a case today for Dr T being a 'very likely' ripper, or is just aiming to show that the police, in late 1888, strongly suspected his involvement and invested manpower in trying to prove it.

Either way, I have seen no actual evidence forthcoming that could ever have justified a charge being brought against Tumblety for one or more of the Whitechapel murders, which, in a way, is quite reassuring, if some people in authority back then really could convince themselves that his sexuality alone was indicative of a violent, woman-hating sadist who could have prowled Whitechapel for three months looking for menopausal unfortunates to mutilate, when he wasn't busy connecting with attractive and obliging youths. It suggests that despite such prejudice and ignorance, they still knew it was only hard evidence that would do, and hard evidence that was lacking. I still can't imagine what could have been learned, across the pond, about Tumblety and his colourful past, that could have remotely helped them to charge him with committing murder in Whitechapel.

The irony, if the aim is to keep Dr T as a legitimate suspect for these murders, is that the harder RJ can demonstrate that the police worked at the time to get the goods on this man (assuming they tried at all) the more likely it becomes that there was nothing to find and it was but a fool's errand. At least if they hardly tried at all, there might be a glimmer of hope today that he was a violent, woman-hating sadist after all, despite being gay, and the evidence for it is out there somewhere, in places they failed to look.

And I might win the lottery on Saturday.

Love,

Caz
X

[mklhawley]

Caz,

Since no one really knows who JTR was, we really do not know his motive. There was a Tumblety motive investigated by Scotland Yard in August 1888 that has nothing to do with sexuality. Check it out:

http://www.searchingfortruthwithabrokenflashlight.com/uploads/Tumblety_and_The_Elixir_of_Life.pdf

Mike

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Jonathan,
Don't get upset. As you have doubtless discovered, there are posters who, lacking anything substantive to say, can only aim blows below the belt, in this instance trying to smear R.J. Palmer as a homophobe. Of course, you and I know full well why some would like to blacken R.J.'s reputation. Just hold your nose and try to ignore.

So, evidence of Palmer’s views on homosexuality (that they, homosexuals, are linked with violence and that, therefore, Pinkerton’s reasons for thinking Tumblety might be the Ripper are valid) should be ignored, swept under the carpet, and then kill the messenger? Is that because it might reflect badly on your new e-zine?

Wolf.

[mklhawley]

No, Pinkerton's reason for believing Tumblety may have been JTR is because Pinkerton himself was in the Whitechapel district during the murders. He knew first hand that Scotland Yard considered Tumblety was a serious suspect. I'm sure he was privy to more details than we ever will be. Secondarily, he may have believed it was some kind of sexual reason that pulled his strings, or maybe not...

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

No, Pinkerton's reason for believing Tumblety may have been JTR is because Pinkerton himself was in the Whitechapel district during the murders. He knew first hand that Scotland Yard considered Tumblety was a serious suspect. I'm sure he was privy to more details than we ever will be. Secondarily, he may have believed it was some kind of sexual reason that pulled his strings, or maybe not...

But that's not what Pinkerton says. Pinkerton makes no mention of any inside information about Tumblety gathered from Scotland Yard. Instead he states, very clearly, that he believes Tumblety was likely guilty of the Whitechapel crimes because he was Gay. There is no grey area about what Pinkerton states: Tumblety was the Ripper because he was an Homosexual.

Sadly there are people on these boards who have gone out of their way to support this theory as being practical.

Wolf.

[mklhawley]

But that's not what Pinkerton says. Pinkerton makes no mention of any inside information about Tumblety gathered from Scotland Yard. Instead he states, very clearly, that he believes Tumblety was likely guilty of the Whitechapel crimes because he was Gay. There is no grey area about what Pinkerton states: Tumblety was the Ripper because he was an Homosexual.

Sadly there are people on these boards who have gone out of their way to support this theory as being practical.

Wolf.

Isn't it amazing that you are perfectly comfortable with Pinkerton supporting Scotland Yard and being deceptive to the press about Parnell, but you completely disregard this agenda with Pinketon following Scotland Yard's lead involving Tumblety. Littlechild certainly talked about it, which conforms perfectly to Pinkerton's comments.

[Natalie Severn]

Instead he states, very clearly, that he believes Tumblety was likely guilty of the Whitechapel crimes because he was Gay. There is no grey area about what Pinkerton states: Tumblety was the Ripper because he was an Homosexual.

And since ,when Pinkerton"s views are aired today ,in hopefully a more enlightened age, they are not just seen to reek of homophobic prejudice but can be seen to be a totally unfounded demonization if not criminalisation of gay men.

[mklhawley]

And since ,when Pinkerton"s views are aired today ,in hopefully a more enlightened age, they are not just seen to reek of homophobic prejudice but can be seen to be a totally unfounded demonization if not criminalisation of gay men.

That's right. I believe people are putting the cart before the horse. People are thinking Scotland Yard believed Tumblety was a serious suspect because of his homosexuality. It could easily have been other reasons for Tumblety making Scotland Yard's list (such as rumors of a doctor, him being on the streets of Whitechapel at the time of the crimes, etc.), but then as they wondered about a motive then his homosexuality was theorized. Only later do we believe motive was the reason why Tumblety made the list.

Mike

[Natalie Severn]

Originally Posted by Natalie Severn
And since ,when Pinkerton"s views are aired today ,in hopefully a more enlightened age, they are not just seen to reek of homophobic prejudice but can be seen to be a totally unfounded demonization if not criminalisation of gay men.
Mike replied:
That's right. I believe people are putting the cart before the horse. People are thinking Scotland Yard believed Tumblety was a serious suspect because of his homosexuality. It could easily have been other reasons for Tumblety making Scotland Yard's list (such as rumors of a doctor, him being on the streets of Whitechapel at the time of the crimes, etc.), but then as they wondered about a motive then his homosexuality was theorized. Only later do we believe motive was the reason why Tumblety made the list.

Actually Mike, by decontextualising my post and representing it as you have,the original meaning has been lost-though I am sure unintentionally.
What I would suggest is that because Roger Palmer has in the past quoted Roy Hazlewood"s views on Hazlewood"s belief that there is a link between homosexuality and sexual sadism and because Roger,in his trilogy of recent articles appears to see Tumblety as a very serious suspect for Jack the Ripper , the matter does now need to be clarified as to whether he agrees with Hazlewood on a supposed link between homosexuality and sexual sadism. After all,its one thing for Pinkerton , Littlechild and co to have been reactionary homophobes in Victorian and Edwardian England who thought homosexuality equalled sexual sadism ---and it was bad enough then to have thought it because not everybody thought like that ,but its quite another matter to credit such views in 2010.
Best Wishes,
Norma

[caz]

Hi Mike,

The point is that if all anyone really has on Tumblety in 2010 are one or two ignorant generalisations that were voiced back in the day about gay men like Tumblety being undoubtedly capable of mutilating women in the ripper fashion, it doesn't bode well for the theory that any real and tangible evidence lay behind these opinions, that could ever have been used to build a specific case against him. You don't name a suspect and talk about mere hunches about his 'type' if you secretly had the guy's DNA all over the crime scene. So if they had something on Tumblety that came close to resulting in an actual murder charge, why do we only get vague stuff about the probable urges of men like him? Why not spit it out if there was something worth spitting?

Love,

Caz
X

[mklhawley]

Hi Mike,

The point is that if all anyone really has on Tumblety in 2010 are one or two ignorant generalisations that were voiced back in the day about gay men like Tumblety being undoubtedly capable of mutilating women in the ripper fashion, it doesn't bode well for the theory that any real and tangible evidence lay behind these opinions, that could ever have been used to build a specific case against him. You don't name a suspect and talk about mere hunches about his 'type' if you secretly had the guy's DNA all over the crime scene. So if they had something on Tumblety that came close to resulting in an actual murder charge, why do we only get vague stuff about the probable urges of men like him? Why not spit it out if there was something worth spitting?

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

Keeping in mind that any original documents and evidence Scotland Yard had in the JTR case is long gone, one powerful piece of evidence (as SPE discovered) is that Scotland Yard considered Tumblety not only a suspect but a serious suspect. For argument sake, let us consider this true. Would this not be considered powerful evidence for us 2010ers? You can assume that Scotland Yard detectives would put someone on the serious suspect list for rediculous reasons, but my guess it they were better at finding the bad guys in the Victorian Age than any of us would be.

Tell me, if you have a case of ZERO witnesses seeing the murders taking place such as the JTR case, how are you going to "build" a case? What kind of tangible evidence are you going to use in order to even hold a suspect, regardless if it was Tumblety or someone else? The only thing you can do is secretly follow them in order to catch them in the act (which they did with Tumblety) or hold them on anything that has teeth (gross indecency) and then do a deep background investigation (which they did with Tumblety) - a normal Scotland Yard procedure in the 1880s.

Also, you are merely assuming that the only thing Scotland Yard had on Tumblety was his homosexuality. If it truly is the case that Scotland Yard considered homosexuals serious candidates for JTR, then why was the suspect list not teaming with homosexuals?

My contention is that Francis Tumblety went on the Scotland Yard radar screen as a potential suspect as early as early October 1888. Scotland Yard investigators went into an "American doctor's" herb store in early October 1888 for the purpose of investigating the Whitechapel murders because of a tip from an "eminent engineer". Tumblety himself admitted that while he was in Whitechapel DURING THE MURDERS, Scotland Yard officials were watching him. Only later did the homosexuality motive come up as a possible Tumblety motive.

To suggest that I believe Tumblety was a serious JTR suspect because of one or two generalizations is idiocy. I even disagree with the idea his homosexuality had anything to do with it. Scotland Yard place a huge bail on Tumblety (for mere gross indecency?) and then he fled. ...and then the murders stopped.

Sincerely,

Mike