Tumblety and Pinkerton

[mklhawley]

Greetings all,

The following article was in the Salt Lake Herold on November 21, 1888.



The earliest known US article connecting Francis Tumblety to JTR was only two days prior to Pinkerton's Chicago interview of November 20th. Where did Billy Pinkerton get the info on Francis Tumblety to know he had disgusting & unnamable vices and had participed in immoralities in Washington DC during the Civil War, and how die he know Tumblety well enought to believe he was capable of the Whitechapel murders? Did he get all of this by merely reading yesterday's newspaper articles? Also, why did a reporter even approach Pinkerton about Francis Tumblety in the first place?

Sincerely,

Mike

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mike,

It's no mystery.

William Pinkerton was in London during the Whitechapel murders and later worked hand-in-glove with Robert Anderson.

It was the Pinkerton agency which arrested Thomas Barton in America on behalf of Anderson whilst Inspector Jarvis ran errands for The Times.

Smoke and mirrors.

Regards,

Simon

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

The above was taken from an earlier newspaper report. Here's a transcript of the original:

The Chicago Daily Inter Ocean
20 November, 1888.

BILLY PINKERTON’S POINTS.

Billy Pinkerton, whose mind is a storehouse of faces, that the rushing world quickly forgets when removed from the immediate arena of its life, late yesterday afternoon, suddenly found without any explanatory introduction, unless a rapt gaze at anevening (sic) paper which he had just bought, could be called an introduction, exclaimed as he walked along Clark street with a reporter of THE INTER OCEAN:
“Peculiar Dr. Tumblety (looking at the paper, and the description of the supposed Whitechapel murderer.) “Tumblety! No, that’s not it. Something like that, though. Tumbledy. No! Twombley! That’s more like it.”
“What’s more like it,” asked the surprised reporter; astonished at Billy’s evolution of the printed murderer’s name as given in the London cablegram, into some other name, less peculiar and more directory-form.
“What? Why it’s the same man. The very same man that I met in Washington long ago.”
“Well, but what man. What can your Washington man of long ago have to do with the Whitechapel murders?”

I’LL SHOW YOU, AND TRAIL HIM

down, too, for you from that long ago, and then you can judge for yourself whether or not it is not the same man. I first knew that man – this Dr, Tumblety or Tumbledy or Twombly, (I think the last is it) – in Washington during the latter part of ’61. He was then a man of about 30 years of age, six feet high, well built; had very dark hair, and very long mustaches dyed coal-black. In fact his mustaches grow into his beard, or rather the beard lengthened out his mustaches until the latter spread down over his shoulders. The natural color of his hair was dark brown. He was, in short, a very conspicuous figure all over. He was a splendidly built man, and made his dress add to his attractions. He wore a sort of military dress. He made himself as conspicuous by his dress as he did by his immense coal-black mustache. He wore a military cap, a black velvet coat, and lavender colored pants. On his feet he had Morocco top boots, and silver or gold spurs on the boots, and rode a pie-bald horse, caparisoned a good deal like a circus horse. He would be taken anywhere for

A SWELL ARMY OFFICER.

At that time my duties in Washington were connected with the secret service of the army, and my attention was naturally drawn to him a good deal by his military appearance. But had that not been the case I could not have failed to noticed him, or had my attention drawn to him, for he was the talk of the whole city, and all Washington seemed to know him. In passing up and down Pennsylvania avenue, he was the most conspicuous figure on the street. I soon found out that he was a quack doctor, and that he was scattering broadcast his advertisements of a cure for a certain class of complaints. A little inquiry soon showed that he had flooded the army with his handbills and with objectionable books, so much so that General McClellan issued strict orders that the circulation of these books in the army should be suppressed, on the ground that many of the books were calculated to debase the soldiers, their contents being of an immoral character and their illustrations still more so. Of course this military acknowledgment that the doctor existed only caused a still more wide attention to be turned upon him. He was watched with closer scrutiny, and, at last, it became known that he was in the habit of indulging in certain vices that finally resulted in him being driven from the city. The next time I met him was in Baltimore. Then

I MET HIM IN NEW YORK

And in different other cities throughout the country and as far west as San Francisco even. 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. The next time I saw him was in England, in 1874. I ran across him then, accidentally, in Liverpool, and again in London. In the latter city he made a complaint to the police that a boy whom he had employed as an office boy, had stolen his watch and chain. The watch, as it turned out afterward, was a very large, flashy gold watch, and the chain was a very heavy neck chain, going twice around his neck. When I met him in London, he was dressed about the same as he had been in Washington when I first saw him. The boy who stole the watch from him had been picked up by him in Liverpool and taken along to London. The police instituted a search after him. They found that the watch had been pawned, and recovered it, and afterward succeeded in arresting the boy. When the boy was in custody he confessed the theft but also made a statement to the police which caused a warrant to be issued for the Doctor’s arrest. The fellow claimed to be an American citizen.

SUPERINTENDANT SHAW

asked me about him. I told him that the boy had undoubtedly told the truth, as the vile character the boy gave of the Doctor was just the character that he had a reputation for in the United States. Up to the time I left London – some three months after that incident – the Doctor had refused to call or, at least, neglected to call for his watch and chain, though they were very valuable. It was finally discovered that he had gone to Paris, his property being left in the hands of the police.
“And what did people who came in contact with the doctor think of his general character?”
“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.”
“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; 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 of, and that such men were crazy and as likely as not to murder women.”

Some things to keep in mind. Although Pinkerton says he knows Tumblety he doesn't seem to actually know his real name.
Other than this article there seems to be no mention of Tumblety's books being suppressed on orders from General McClellan or anyone else.
Pinkerton gets the facts behind the arrest of Henry Carr wrong. This happened in 1873 not 1874 as Pinkerton states. Carr was arrested when he pawned a gold chain, not watch and chain, that drew the suspicions of the pawnbroker. Tumblety was not involved in the Magistrate's hearing and no order for Tumblety's arrest was given nor did he flee to Paris.
It is obvious that Pinkerton thinks Tumblety is responsible for the Whitechapel Murders because he was a homosexual and therefore a monster and sexual deviant capable of any atrocity. Although R. J. Palmer has claimed on these boards that he believes that homosexuality can be linked with violent crimes, more enlightened minds will strongly disagree.

Wolf.

[mklhawley]

This does answer many questions. I wonder if Conover read this particular article before he was personally quoted.

Mike

[caz]

Although R. J. Palmer has claimed on these boards that he believes that homosexuality can be linked with violent crimes, more enlightened minds will strongly disagree.

Crikey, that really would be selling one's soul for the sake of keeping a ripper theory alive. Wolf, please reassure me that the 'he' in this sentence refers to Pinkerton, or someone else from the dark ages, and not our very own RJ.

I don't think I could bear it.

Love,

Caz
X

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Hi Caz.

No, I was talking about Palmer.

There had been a discussion on Andrew Cook’s book on William Melville and its, supposed, evidence against Tumblety which had morphed, as these things usually do on the boards, into a discussion of American police attitudes towards Tumblety as a Ripper candidate.

A. P. Wolfe had stated that, to his knowledge, William Pinkerton didn’t think Tumblety was a good suspect. Palmer then posted the same, or similar, newspaper account that Mike has above showing that Pinkerton actually did consider Tumblety a good candidate. I then pointed out that Pinkerton’s belief was based on Tumblety’s homosexuality and so his reasoning was greatly flawed and, to my mind, worthless. Palmer, however, stated that I was wrong because homosexuality and violence were linked by one of the FBI’s top profilers (I think it was Roy Hazelwood) and that, therefore, Pinkerton’s views were correct. He later posted something similar on another board I seem to recall. Sad, really.

Wolf.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

William Pinkerton: "I first knew that man – this Dr, Tumblety or Tumbledy or Twombly, (I think the last is it) – in Washington during the latter part of ’61 . . . At that time my duties in Washington were connected with the secret service of the army . . ."

Interesting work for a boy of 15 [b.1846].

Regards,

Simon

[Natalie Severn]

I am beginning to feel a bit sorry for Tumblety. Sounds as though he was being persecuted for being a dandy and being gay.Remind you of anyone?
Pinkerton wasn"t related to the Marquis of Queensbury was he?

[Supe]

Wolf,

I hope your "cheap shot by recollection" is not typical of your scholarship. if you are going to claim that an adversary said something, in this case R.J. Palmer, quote him fully and cite the source. Of course, this sort of thing was a favored tactic of that guy for whose magazine you once wrote, so i would guess you learned from him. In any case, it is bad form to make ad hominem attacks based on no more than "I seem to recall."

Don.

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

The original discussion, on Andrew Cook’s book on William Melville, was lost in a crash of the boards therefore I can’t direct readers to it. However, I do have a copies of my original posts on the matter.

On 22 January, 2008, I posted, in part, this:

“…It is clear, from the information in the longer interview with Pinkerton that when, in Mr. Palmer’s first post, the newspaper article states “Tumblety was guilty of the most disgusting and unnameable vices,” Pinkerton is talking about Tumblety’s homosexuality. In fact, Pinkerton states that the reason he believes Tumblety was capable of being the Whitechapel Murderer was that he was a homosexual and thus obviously insane. He goes on to point out that Dr. William A. Hammond, one of the leading American neurologists of the day, supported this opinion of a homosexual killer. Pinkerton then states that '[Dr. Hammond 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 of, and that such men were crazy and as likely as not to murder women.' (The Chicago Daily Inter Ocean, 20 November, 1888.)

Mr. Palmer’s sentence that there 'may' be more than a 'touch' of homophobia guiding Pinkerton’s opinion is disingenuous. Pinkerton thoughts about Tumblety’s possible guilt stem directly from Tumblety’s sexuality and the belief that any man who was gay was a “woman hater” and insane and thus capable of being the Whitechapel Murderer (Littlechild also points to Tumblety’s homosexuality as evidence of guilt when he describes him as a 'Sycopathia Sexualis' subject). Modern thinkers must dismiss this out of hand….”

Sometime between the 22nd of January, when the above was posted, and the 30th of January, 2008, Palmer posted a response. I know this because I posted a response to Palmer’s post on the 30th. In this post I quoted from Palmer:

“…As for your claim that the link between homosexuality and sadism against women is a thing of the distant past, (something I never said but apparently Palmer got confused with the “modern thinkers” line I wrote WV) I’m afraid this is not so. You are a great believer in F.B.I profiling, Vanderlinden, and have touted it many times over the years on this forum and elsewhere, but yet you seem oblivious to the fact that one of the main figures of the FBI’s behavioral science project that looked at sexual sadism--Roy Hazelwood-- said this very thing!! He said there WAS a link.”

After there was some condemnation for his post Palmer slunk away.

I’ll await your apology Souden, but I won’t hold my breath.

Wolf.

[Supe]

Wolf,

Apology for what? And that's MR. Souden to you.

Don.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Wolf,
re the following quote originally posted by RJ Palmer:

“…As for your claim that the link between homosexuality and sadism against women is a thing of the distant past, (something I never said but apparently Palmer got confused with the “modern thinkers” line I wrote WV) I’m afraid this is not so. You are a great believer in F.B.I profiling, Vanderlinden, and have touted it many times over the years on this forum and elsewhere, but yet you seem oblivious to the fact that one of the main figures of the FBI’s behavioral science project that looked at sexual sadism--Roy Hazelwood-- said this very thing!! He said there WAS a link.”

I follow your point but to me it seems clear that Roger Palmer isn"t saying he agrees with Roy Hazelwood and the FBI project, just that according to an FBI"s behavioural science project that looked at sexual sadism, there is a link.
Best,
Norma

[Jonathan H]

To Natalie

I think you make an incisive point here.

R J Palmer was making a counter-point about the other researcher's reliance on a particular methodology, and that even the latter arguably backs the first writer's point -- even if you do not agree with it, in fact are repulsed by it.

I can undertand why that sort of nuance is lost on an absolutist or doctrinaire mentailty, as they always can slide into inaccurate accusations because such a mind cannot conceive of shades of gray, only back and white.

Perhaps they should 'slunk' away ...

[mklhawley]

Hi All,

William Pinkerton: "I first knew that man – this Dr, Tumblety or Tumbledy or Twombly, (I think the last is it) – in Washington during the latter part of ’61 . . . At that time my duties in Washington were connected with the secret service of the army . . ."

Interesting work for a boy of 15 [b.1846].

Regards,

Simon

"The Tent Picture" of Pinkerton, outside his quarters, after the Battle of Antietam, in October 1862, with President Lincoln and Gen. John McLernand, a former Chicago attorney. In letters from William Pinkerton, who accompanied his father during the Civil War as a 16-year-old cadet, he recalled that a portrait of the president alone had been planned, but Lincoln had ushered his two Chicago friends into the picture.

...The Civil War was the young agency's first real break, providing future contracts and profits totalling $40,000. The Founder, as Allen Pinkerton called himself, expanded business on a national scale. He installed his youngest and favorite son, Robert, in the newly opened New York office, while keeping oldest son William with him in the Chicago World Headquarters. ...


Well, it looks as though this 16 year old was indeed in Washington DC and already in the employ of the Army and his father, just as Billy stated in his 1888 comment. This would actually lend support to the veracity of his comments in its entirety.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Apology for what? And that's MR. Souden to you.

Yeah, I really didn’t think you had the stones to apologize. Thanks for proving me right about you.

I follow your point but to me it seems clear that Roger Palmer isn"t saying he agrees with Roy Hazelwood and the FBI project, just that according to an FBI"s behavioural science project that looked at sexual sadism, there is a link.

Norma.

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?

If you don’t know then you are taking one paragraph and making an assumption based on only that (while disregarding the fact that Palmer’s words were a rebuttal of my stand that homosexuality is in no way evidence that Tumblety, or anyone else, could be a vicious serial killer). Now, I understand that the whole theory against Tumblety is based on this type of rigorous research – i.e. jumping to conclusions based on the thinnest of evidence – but I’m surprised that you should stoop to this.

Jonathan, shhhhh, the grownups are talking.

Wolf.