Tumblety and Pinkerton

[mklhawley]

Hi Wolf,

I haven't checked Casebook for awhile and I noticed I ruffled some anti-Tumblety feathers. Trevor, you're such a follower. I'll review this soon and reply.

best,

Mike

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Mike.

You’re wrong again Wolf. Pinkerton’s point is that he thoroughly hated women and was brutal, which is different than merely being gay. Notice how he used “and” which means he is differentiating hating women with not associating with women (being gay)…

It’s interesting how you came to this conclusion Mike. All you had to do was cherry pick one sentence from the much longer article, disregarding everything Pinkerton stated about Tumblety’s homosexuality, then cherry pick one word, “and,” from that one sentence and, presto! Pinkerton’s reasons for suspecting Tumblety magically disappears.

This is exactly the type of “reasoning” which permeates all of Tumblety World (a magical place were logic and basic facts, let alone real evidence, don’t really exist). The question is, who, exactly, are you tying to convince with this?

Here’s what Pinkerton said which you had to ignore in order to make the above case:

“…it became known that he was in the habit of indulging in certain vices that finally resulted in him being driven from the city.” – Pinkerton is talking about Tumblety’s homosexuality.
“In Chicago, along about ’69, he was detected in indulging in the vices to which I have referred and he had to fly that city.” – Again, Pinkerton is talking about Tumblety’s homosexuality.
“…the vile character the boy gave of the Doctor was just the character that he had a reputation for in the United States.” – Tumblety’s homosexuality.
“And what do you think are the probabilities of his being the man who committed the Whitechapel murders – murders committed, apparently, without any object in view? Do you consider that the Doctor was insane?
“Yes, I do. I think a man guilty of such practices as those I have referred to must be insane (see above for the referred practises, ie homosexuality, and how Pinkerton now equates this with insanity); and Dr. Hammond – Surgeon General Hammond – some time ago, when asked as to whether or not he thought that the Whitechapel murderer was an insane man, said that when the murderer of those women was discovered he would undoubtedly be found to be a woman-hater and a man guilty of the same practices which I have described, and Twombley, or Tumblety, as being guilty (Tumblety’s homosexuality) of, and that such men were crazy and as likely as not to murder women.” (Tumblety is Gay, is therefore insane and, therefore, likely to murder women, ie he is the Whitechapel Murderer, in Pinkerton’s mind.)

To put it as simply as I can for you, Tumblety’s “vices” and “practices” are mentioned throughout and Pinkerton specifically states that he believes Tumblety capable of the Whitechapel murders because of them. I would have thought that was fairly clear cut and obvious from Pinkerton’s own words.

… Keep in mind also that this article came BEFORE the Colonel Dunham interview, thus, not influenced by Dunham’s article as you previously and incorrectly claimed.

I have no idea what you are talking about here, Mike. Please explain.

Wolf.

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Hi Caz.

Wow! I have to second Trevor’s opinion. That was very nicely done.

The only thing I would add is in regards to Mike’s view that “Scotland Yard place a huge bail on Tumblety (for mere gross indecency?).”

Tumblety’s bail had nothing to do with Scotland Yard or the Whitechapel Murders. Rob Clack has shown that the Magistrate, J. L. Hannay, who Tumblety appeared before, did fix high bail for men accused of acts of gross indecency. Rob cited the case of a defendant charged with gross indecency who was forced to pay two sureties totalling £500 and, on top of this, post a bail of £300. This man had absolutely nothing to do with the Whitechapel murders yet the combined sum to secure his bail was over double what Tumblety was asked to pay. It appears that rather than trying to keep a Ripper suspect under lock and key, as Tumblety supports would have it, Magistrate Hannay was actually trying to keep Homosexuals off the streets.

Wolf.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Mike,

If your ‘one powerful piece of evidence’ is Littlechild’s letter, you are seriously distorting his words. What he actually said was that Tumblety was ‘amongst’ the suspects, and was ‘to my mind’ a very likely one. Now how can that possibly be read as: ‘Scotland Yard’ considered him a ‘serious’ suspect?

We have nothing to suggest that to anyone else’s mind at Scotland Yard he was a ‘very likely’ ripper. They all seemed to have their own ideas. And you only have to look at the pitiful list that has come down to us to see that there was no tangible evidence against any of them. If just one, eg Tumblety, had been accompanied by the sort of intelligence that took him beyond being the likely type, he’d have stood head and shoulders above the rest and been adopted by everyone at the Yard as their pet suspect.

No, Mike, you tell me. This is exactly my point. The argument goes that Scotland Yard were attempting to do just that with Tumblety.

Then they were crap at it because they failed to follow him to Miller’s Court and catch him in the act of entering Mary Kelly’s room with his knife. And don’t tell me that someone else may have killed her; your Tumblety followers evidently had no doubt this was the ripper’s work, and his last job. If they’d followed him properly they would have known either way.

And once again, what earthly good was even the deepest background investigation, if they had nothing to link him with any of the Whitechapel murders? No case means no case, Mike. And if they did probe his background (rather them than me) they apparently never got beyond his homosexuality and supposed hatred of women, did they?

Not ‘serious’ candidates, no. And again, you seem to imagine that Scotland Yard was one body with one mind, when it was more like an octopus, with tentacles trying to cover all the bases. But a recurring theme was sexual ‘insanity’, and not as we might think of it today (eg the violent display of an abnormal and unhealthy attitude towards women and the female body by an otherwise unremarkable man), but in the ill-perceived guise of homosexuality, self abuse or some other ‘shocking’ display that no decent Victorian would go in for, and therefore a ‘very likely’ indication of hidden depths of depravity.

But what sort of ‘tip’? What on earth could reasonably have triggered a suspicion in the collective mind of Scotland Yard that this man was not only a serious menace to decent society with his shirt-lifting antics and whatever was in that large dossier, but possibly the serial mutilator of menopausal women to boot?

They stopped everywhere, Mike, for those who believe Kelly was the last. And yes, he fled, but he also lived on, letting every woman in his path do the same, contrary to Littlechild’s observation that it was believed he did away with himself.



But it wasn’t much of a window into ‘Scotland Yard officials’ views’ on this man as a ripper suspect.

He was a frequent visitor to London who was constantly brought to their notice and they had a large dossier on him.



Hang on, Mike. Littlechild is saying here that ‘although’ Tumblety was gay it was never established that he was a sadist too, like the ripper (ie gays are very likely to be secret sadists) but it is a definitely ascertained fact that he did have extremely bitter ‘feelings’ towards women. The ‘but’ is not separating ‘gay’ from ‘bitter’; it’s offering ‘bitter’ as a (poor) substitute for ‘sadistic’.

In short, he suspected Tumblety of being a secret sadist and very likely ripper because he was gay and had apparently expressed very bitter feelings towards the opposite sex.

It’s not much, is it? And it doesn't seem to have been the ultimate view of anyone else at Scotland Yard.

Love,

Caz
X

Eloquently put Caz

Mike obvioulsy cannot distinguish with what is evidence and what is mere hearsay you have been told many times on here but you still cant grasp it.

The Littlechild letter contains nothing more than an uncorroborated opinion that is not any form of evidence. Since SPE found it and released it far to many people have been assesing and evaluting it incorrectly. The contents do not suggest Tumblety was a serious Scotland yard suspect.

I hope the pennny now drops

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mike,

Scotland Yard always recycled its more successful wheezes.

San Francisco Morning Call, 30th June 1892–



Regards,

Simon

[caz]

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.

Hi Mike,

If your ‘one powerful piece of evidence’ is Littlechild’s letter, you are seriously distorting his words. What he actually said was that Tumblety was ‘amongst’ the suspects, and was ‘to my mind’ a very likely one. Now how can that possibly be read as: ‘Scotland Yard’ considered him a ‘serious’ suspect?

We have nothing to suggest that to anyone else’s mind at Scotland Yard he was a ‘very likely’ ripper. They all seemed to have their own ideas. And you only have to look at the pitiful list that has come down to us to see that there was no tangible evidence against any of them. If just one, eg Tumblety, had been accompanied by the sort of intelligence that took him beyond being the likely type, he’d have stood head and shoulders above the rest and been adopted by everyone at the Yard as their pet suspect.

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?

No, Mike, you tell me. This is exactly my point. The argument goes that Scotland Yard were attempting to do just that with Tumblety.

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.

Then they were crap at it because they failed to follow him to Miller’s Court and catch him in the act of entering Mary Kelly’s room with his knife. And don’t tell me that someone else may have killed her; your Tumblety followers evidently had no doubt this was the ripper’s work, and his last job. If they’d followed him properly they would have known either way.

And once again, what earthly good was even the deepest background investigation, if they had nothing to link him with any of the Whitechapel murders? No case means no case, Mike. And if they did probe his background (rather them than me) they apparently never got beyond his homosexuality and supposed hatred of women, did they?

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?

Not ‘serious’ candidates, no. And again, you seem to imagine that Scotland Yard was one body with one mind, when it was more like an octopus, with tentacles trying to cover all the bases. But a recurring theme was sexual ‘insanity’, and not as we might think of it today (eg the violent display of an abnormal and unhealthy attitude towards women and the female body by an otherwise unremarkable man), but in the ill-perceived guise of homosexuality, self abuse or some other ‘shocking’ display that no decent Victorian would go in for, and therefore a ‘very likely’ indication of hidden depths of depravity.

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".

But what sort of ‘tip’? What on earth could reasonably have triggered a suspicion in the collective mind of Scotland Yard that this man was not only a serious menace to decent society with his shirt-lifting antics and whatever was in that large dossier, but possibly the serial mutilator of menopausal women to boot?

Scotland Yard place a huge bail on Tumblety (for mere gross indecency?) and then he fled. ...and then the murders stopped.

They stopped everywhere, Mike, for those who believe Kelly was the last. And yes, he fled, but he also lived on, letting every woman in his path do the same, contrary to Littlechild’s observation that it was believed he did away with himself.

Note again what Littlechild stated about Tumblety (a window into Scotland Yard officials’ views).

But it wasn’t much of a window into ‘Scotland Yard officials’ views’ on this man as a ripper suspect.

He was a frequent visitor to London who was constantly brought to their notice and they had a large dossier on him.

[Chief Inspector Littlechild]“…Although a 'Sycopathia Sexualis' subject he was not known as a 'Sadist' (which the murderer unquestionably was) but his feelings toward women were remarkable and bitter in the extreme, a fact on record. …”

…Notice how Littlechild separates Sycopathis Sexualis [Charles Gilbert Chaddock. M.D., in his 1894 book Psychopathia Sexualis refers to it as “contrary sexual instinct”, in other words – being gay] from his woman-hater comment with a “BUT”.

Hang on, Mike. Littlechild is saying here that ‘although’ Tumblety was gay it was never established that he was a sadist too, like the ripper (ie gays are very likely to be secret sadists) but it is a definitely ascertained fact that he did have extremely bitter ‘feelings’ towards women. The ‘but’ is not separating ‘gay’ from ‘bitter’; it’s offering ‘bitter’ as a (poor) substitute for ‘sadistic’.

In short, he suspected Tumblety of being a secret sadist and very likely ripper because he was gay and had apparently expressed very bitter feelings towards the opposite sex.

It’s not much, is it? And it doesn't seem to have been the ultimate view of anyone else at Scotland Yard.

Love,

Caz
X

[mklhawley]

Hi Mike,

There is "evidence" to suggest that neither of the Pinkerton brothers was in London at the time of the Star interview.

However, on balance I believe William Pinkerton was in London during September 1888 [though it had nothing to do with Tumblety] and that he was the person interviewed by the Star.

Unfortunately this means that in New York Robert Pinkerton was being economical with the truth in explaining to the press his brother's whereabouts around this time.

Who do you want to believe?

Regards,

Simon

Wow, did anyone tell the truth back then!?

Mike

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mike,

There is "evidence" to suggest that neither of the Pinkerton brothers was in London at the time of the Star interview.

However, on balance I believe William Pinkerton was in London during September 1888 [though it had nothing to do with Tumblety] and that he was the person interviewed by the Star.

Unfortunately this means that in New York Robert Pinkerton was being economical with the truth in explaining to the press his brother's whereabouts around this time.

Who do you want to believe?

Regards,

Simon

[mklhawley]

Hi Mike,

You appear to subconsciously invent things as you go along your merry way.

Here's an example.

"Remember that Pinkerton was personally associating with Scotland Yard officials in Whitechapel at the time of the murders, so he would have been privy to the opinions of the inspectors."

Would you care to substantiate this particular flight of fancy?

Regards,

Simon

Uh, with you. You stated in a previous post (#2) ,“Hi Mike, It's no mystery. William Pinkerton was in London during the Whitechapel murders and later worked hand-in-glove with Robert Anderson…” Now, it is true that I stated Whitechapel as opposed to its next door neighbor London, but does that really change my argument? No.

Would Pinkerton have any interest in taking a short trip to the Whitechapel district? In The Star (September 18th, 1888), one of the Pinkerton’s stated, "I have been in Scotland for a month," said Pinkerton, "knocking about the Highlands, and whenever I came to where I could get a newspaper I found it impossible to refrain from eagerly devouring all I could find about these Whitechapel murders."

So, we see the Pinkertons seriously interested in the Whitechapel crimes. Did they have a relationship with any of the “Whitechapel” authorities, thus, may have known them perosonally? You brought up Anderson, and of course, we do know Inspector Abberline himself was hired by the Pinkertons after he retired from Scotland Yard.

This information actually seems to increase my original argument. Once Tumblety was on Scotland Yard's radar screen, his unusual hatred of women created a possible JTR motive in the eyes of Scotland Yard, not his homosexuality. Again, if homosexuality equated with hatred of women in 1888, why are there not more homosexual JTR suspects?

Sincerely,

Mike

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mike,

You appear to subconsciously invent things as you go along your merry way.

Here's an example.

"Remember that Pinkerton was personally associating with Scotland Yard officials in Whitechapel at the time of the murders, so he would have been privy to the opinions of the inspectors."

Would you care to substantiate this particular flight of fancy?

Regards,

Simon

[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.

You’re wrong again Wolf. Pinkerton’s point is that he thoroughly hated women and was brutal, which is different than merely being gay. Notice how he used “and” which means he is differentiating hating women with not associating with women (being gay). Keep in mind also that this article came BEFORE the Colonel Dunham interview, thus, not influenced by Dunham’s article as you previously and incorrectly claimed.

[Pinkerton]:“People familiar with the history of the man always talked of him as a brute, and as brutal in his actions. He was known as a thorough woman-hater AND as a man who never associated with or mixed with women of any kind. It was claimed that he was educated as a surgeon in Canada and he was said to have been quite an expert in surgical operations. I have not heard his name mentioned in ten years.”


Remember that Pinkerton was personally associating with Scotland Yard officials in Whitechapel at the time of the murders, so he would have been privy to the opinions of the inspectors. Note again what Littlechild stated about Tumblety (a window into Scotland Yard officials’ views).

[Chief Inspector Littlechild]“…but amongst the suspects, and to my mind a very likely one, was a Dr. T. (which sounds much like D.) He was an American quack named Tumblety and was at one time a frequent visitor to London and on these occasions constantly brought under the notice of police, there being a large dossier concerning him at Scotland Yard. Although a 'Sycopathia Sexualis' subject he was not known as a 'Sadist' (which the murderer unquestionably was) but his feelings toward women were remarkable and bitter in the extreme, a fact on record. Tumblety was arrested at the time of the murders in connection with unnatural offences and charged at Marlborough Street, remanded on bail, jumped his bail, and got away to Boulogne.…”

Regardless if Littlechild mixed his stories accidentally or on purpose, the woman hater issue was clearly about Tumblety. Notice how Littlechild separates Sycopathis Sexualis [Charles Gilbert Chaddock. M.D., in his 1894 book Psychopathia Sexualis refers to it as “contrary sexual instinct”, in other words – being gay] from his woman-hater comment with a “BUT”. He is differentiating being gay with extreme woman hatred just as Stewart Evans has suggested. Also, Pinkerton’s comments clearly show Littlechild’s comments were not merely commenting upon normal homosexuality as you claim but on extreme women-hatred as Stewart Evans claims.

Mike

[mariab]

I agree with C.D. here.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Mike,

Why does it have to be an either/or situation. Couldn't it have been both?

c.d.

What about neither !

[c.d.]

Hi Mike,

Why does it have to be an either/or situation. Couldn't it have been both?

c.d.

[mklhawley]

With sincere respect, Mike, I think that's a very bad guess.

The "bad guy", in this case, was a serial killer, and we know considerably more about them today than anyone did in the Victorian Age. I'm with Caz on this one. It seems clear to me that if Littlechild was aware of more incriminating evidence against Tumblety, he wouldn't have spent the longest paragraph in his letter to Sims discussing his view that those with a "contrary sexual instinct" are "given to cruelty". Surely if there was any more compelling evidence in that "large dossier", he would have placed more focus on that?

Best regards,
Ben

It is not a surprise that experienced ripperologists on this forum are skeptical and will not automatically change their minds. Coming from the scientific community, I prefer this. After all, you've been convinced by Wolf and company for 10 years not because you like him, but because of their convincing arguments.

Besides the Barnett extradition, Inspector Andrews coming over to Canada could have only been for two reasons as expressed in the papers of the time - drumming up witnesses for The Times and the Parnell Commisison or investigating Francis Tumblety. Remember, both were reported in the papers.

I believe we can say that if he came for the illegal Parnell conspiracy, then Tumblety was not considered the prime JTR suspect. BUT, if he came for Tumblety, then Tumblety must have been the prime suspect. Why else would they spend the time on a lesser suspect?

Back to Superintendent Shore, the Irish-biased source claiming Andrews came over for the Parnell conspiracy made it clear that Superintendent Shore came to the US with Jarvis. Wolf earlier considered this unlikely until I used it against him. Now of course he claims he was wrong. Pinkerton publically claimed Shore never came to the US. No one at the time countered this argument by saying, "Oh, yes he did and here's the proof..." It never happened and it is not happening even today. Shore was not in the US. I do not believe many understand the critical point this makes. If Shore was not in the U.S., then the Irish-biased source claiming the Parnell conpiracy can now be suspect. Tumblety was a serious JTR suspect.

I say for a fourth time. Someone demonstrate to me Shore clearly came to the U.S. Wolf even considered this idea incorrect.

Mike