Newly Discovered Tumblety Photo

[Siobhan Patricia Mulcahy]

Thanks for posting Mike.
Tumblety (born circa 1831-3) would be in his early to mid 40s in this picture circa 1875. He looks incredibly young. Move forward a decade or so to 1888 and he may well have looked much younger than his years - just thinking of eye witness descriptions of the Ripper being (mainly 30s to 40s age bracket) when Tumblety would in actuality have been mid 50s.

Also, Tumblety obviously had a very strange body shape. If he was indeed over 6 feet tall as many assert then he had impossibly narrow shoulders for his height! Just look at the proportion of his shoulders to his head size and then imagine his lanky body. Yipes. What a human specimen!

I can understand why he had a penchant for padded shoulders/ military style coats ...to hide his hideous body shape.

A woman's perspective. Forgive me.

[Bridewell]

Southpaw?

Oh come on.

The paper is held in the right hand.

The left hand is clenched and not touching the paper.

I think it's a moot point whether or not the left hand is in contact with the paper in a two-dimensional image and if you can say that the gloved left hand is 'clenched' your eyesight must be better than mine.

Indulge me. Pass a newspaper to an unbriefed third party and ask them to read something from it. I'll wager that the dominant hand will be at the bottom of the paper and the non-dominant hand at the top.

I don't think it's an important issue, and I acknowledge that it's a posed photograph, but it doesn't strike me as the natural way for a right-handed person to hold a document. I'm not looking for an argument. If the consensus of opinion is that MJD was right-handed, that's fine by me.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Beowulf]

So while I definitely see a resemblance between the known photo and Neil's newly-discovered photo, I'd hope for some kind of confirming documentation. What do you think?

The photo of Tumblety in military uniform and the 'new' photo of him have different eyebrow shapes as compared to each other.

[Beowulf]

The photo of Tumblety in military uniform and the 'new' photo of him have different eyebrow shapes as compared to each other.

See the eyebrows, they are different.

[Beowulf]

See the eyebrows, they are different.

Also, the man in the 'new' photo has not got earlobes.

[mklhawley]

Hi Beowulf,

I have absolutely no argument with your observations. The photo on the right ultimately came from Tumblety (advertising his book) and the one on the left ultimately came from Hall Caine (private gift from Tumblety), who knew exactly what Tumblety looked like. Knowing how deceptive Tumblety was, my bet is the photo on the left is him and the one on the right is a model making Dr. T look good for the public.

Sincerely,

Mike

[moonbegger]

Hello all ,

Earlobes, eyebrows , eyelids ???

moonbegger.

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

“Storey's Tumblety photo came from Sir Thomas Henry Hall Caine's private collection.” (mklhawley post #15)

“…the one on the left ultimately came from Hall Caine (private gift from Tumblety)” (mklhawley post #21)

Storey’s book only says that the supposed photo of Tumblety comes from a “Private Collection.” Absolutely no other attribution beyond this is given. He certainly doesn’t state that the photo once belonged to Hall Cain or that it was a gift to Cain from Tumblety.

Nemo, who was at the recent conference where Storey spoke about his book, talked to Storey about the photo and he said that he remembered thinking that it had a better provenance than the one from Tim’s book and that it might have come from some of Hall Cain’s records but he wasn’t actually sure that he was remembering this correctly (this was posted on Howard’s site).

I’m curious, therefore, as to where the information that the photo came from Cain’s “private collection” comes from. Has Storey stated somewhere that he did find the photo in some records of Hall Cain’s?

“I would not put it past the untrustworthy Tumblety to have used a young handsome model for the picture." (mklhawley post #15)

“Knowing how deceptive Tumblety was, my bet is the photo… on the right is a model making Dr. T look good for the public.” (mklhawley post #21)

As for the photo that appeared on the cover of Tumblety’s 1871 biography, this is undoubtedly a picture of Tumblety. Tumblety mentions the photo in the text and describes what he’s wearing – a Prussian officers uniform. Would a man like Tumblety, who was very well known across North America and beyond, use a fake photograph of himself and open himself up to derision when many people knew exactly what he looked like?

More importantly, in 1873, when Henry Carr appeared before a police magistrate in London for unlawful ownership of Tumblety’s gold watch chain, Carr’s father produced a copy of the bio in court and, showing the photo of Tumblety on the cover to the judge, stated that this was a photo of the man who had “decoyed his son away.” We know, therefore, that the photo is of Tumblety and not some younger, good looking model.

Wolf.

[Beowulf]

Wonder how he grew earlobes, then

[Cogidubnus]

You're quite right Barbara...let's put this delicately...these two pictures cannot possibly be of the same person unless there has been a considerable degree of plastic surgery...which is something Siobhan raised way back...One or another of the pictures is clearly a ringer...

Can anybody offer any elucidation?

All the best

Dave

[mklhawley]

Storey’s book only says that the supposed photo of Tumblety comes from a “Private Collection.” Absolutely no other attribution beyond this is given. He certainly doesn’t state that the photo once belonged to Hall Cain or that it was a gift to Cain from Tumblety.

Nemo, who was at the recent conference where Storey spoke about his book, talked to Storey about the photo and he said that he remembered thinking that it had a better provenance than the one from Tim’s book and that it might have come from some of Hall Cain’s records but he wasn’t actually sure that he was remembering this correctly (this was posted on Howard’s site).

I’m curious, therefore, as to where the information that the photo came from Cain’s “private collection” comes from. Has Storey stated somewhere that he did find the photo in some records of Hall Cain’s?



As for the photo that appeared on the cover of Tumblety’s 1871 biography, this is undoubtedly a picture of Tumblety. Tumblety mentions the photo in the text and describes what he’s wearing – a Prussian officers uniform. Would a man like Tumblety, who was very well known across North America and beyond, use a fake photograph of himself and open himself up to derision when many people knew exactly what he looked like?

More importantly, in 1873, when Henry Carr appeared before a police magistrate in London for unlawful ownership of Tumblety’s gold watch chain, Carr’s father produced a copy of the bio in court and, showing the photo of Tumblety on the cover to the judge, stated that this was a photo of the man who had “decoyed his son away.” We know, therefore, that the photo is of Tumblety and not some younger, good looking model.

Wolf.

Hi Wolf,

Yes, there is more to the story, but it's not mine to say. Either they are both photos of Tumblety or Storey's is.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Yes, there is more to the story, but it's not mine to say. Either they are both photos of Tumblety or Storey's is.

The photographs are obviously of two different men so they aren't both of Tumblety. Until some actual proof is offered (as opposed to conjecture) as to where the photo that appeared in Storey's book came from AND, more importantly, why it is supposed to be a photo of Francis Tumblety; AND exactly why it doesn't match Tumblety's own photo of himself; AND why Henry Carr's father used Tumblety's photo in a Court of Law to identify Tumblety if it wasn't an actual photo of him, then Storey's photo must be considered to be of someone else. The existing evidence and provenance sides with Tumblety's own picture of himself being genuine.

Wolf.

[mklhawley]

The photographs are obviously of two different men so they aren't both of Tumblety. Until some actual proof is offered (as opposed to conjecture) as to where the photo that appeared in Storey's book came from AND, more importantly, why it is supposed to be a photo of Francis Tumblety; AND exactly why it doesn't match Tumblety's own photo of himself; AND why Henry Carr's father used Tumblety's photo in a Court of Law to identify Tumblety if it wasn't an actual photo of him, then Storey's photo must be considered to be of someone else. The existing evidence and provenance sides with Tumblety's own picture of himself being genuine.

Wolf.

I agree 100% wolf, but I'd recommend not putting too much money on it.

Mike

[Brenda]

.

The man on the right side has arched and groomed his eyebrows.

[mklhawley]

More importantly, in 1873, when Henry Carr appeared before a police magistrate in London for unlawful ownership of Tumblety’s gold watch chain, Carr’s father produced a copy of the bio in court and, showing the photo of Tumblety on the cover to the judge, stated that this was a photo of the man who had “decoyed his son away.” We know, therefore, that the photo is of Tumblety and not some younger, good looking model.

Wolf.

Wolf,

We need to clarify something you wrote, since it seems you are not entirely accurate. Here’s what the London Times (Dec 1, 1873) stated:

The front of the pamphlet bore a portrait of Dr. Tumblety, dressed in the uniform of a Prussian officer. Witness said that this was the person who had decoyed his son away.



The Times said portrait, not photo. Note what Riordan stated in the Prince of Quacks:

As he had done earlier, Tumblety published his life story to boost his claims against the government. The first of his new editions was published in 1871 and bore the title “Dr. Tumblety’s Narrative… More importantly, this edition replace the cover sketch showing his arrest with a photograph of Tumblety dressed in what was supposed to be a Prussian Hassar’s uniform…

Perhaps because the photographs were too expensive or the uniform was so laughable, Tumblety published another pamphlet in 1872. This one was published in New York… Probably the most significant item from this edition of the autobiography is the picture on the cover. Tumblety reports that it is an engraving done from a photograph taken while he was in Berlin. It shows him dressed in the uniform of the Imperial Guard with a large walrus-type moustache. His hair is cut much shorter than in 1866 and he looks older and heavier. Three of the other medals are not picture well enough to distinguish but Tumblety would later claim they were the Iron Cross of Prussia…



Henry Carr most likely had the 1872 engraving of Tumblety not the 1871 photo, since the case was in 1873. We should actually be looking at the engraving and comparing it with the other photo.

Mike