Tumblety & Prostitutes

[jmenges]

Also from that jtrforums post of so long ago:

Another, rather important, thing to be pointed out (for those who do not know), and something that will always sit in the back of my mind, is that Tumblety in his tirade against Stanton and Holt singles out Conover/Dunham twice by name as being part of the coordinated effort to destroy the lives and reputations of innocent people.
Conover was tried for his perjured assassination testimony and the role he played in evidence and witness tampering and was sentenced to 10 years in prison.
This raises the familiar spectre of Conover the liar, in 1888, recognising Tumblety's name while reading of his flight from London, and as he recalls the insults and accusations Tumblety metted out towards him in 1866, he may have decided to tamper with Tumblety's reputation one last time.

****
To me it seems that Conover was a liar when it comes to Dr. T in 1865 and 1888.

JM

[jmenges]

This actually leads to the December 1888 comments of someone who knew Francis Tumblety beginning over a quarter of a century prior to the murders. This person was Charles Dunham. Because ripperologists have been under the misconception that Charles Dunham was a pathological liar, his commented have been relegated as untrustworthy, thus, we seem to have forgotten what he stated about Francis Tumblety. Last year, I had written two articles on Charles Dunham, demonstrating that he was far from being a pathological liar (the job description for a Civil War double agent was convincing deception, but that was only during the Civil War and the presidential assassination fiasco) AND that lying about Tumblety in 1888 would have been out of character for him.

Hi Mike, I sent you a PM.

I ask of the above statement, why should we see Dunham/Conover in a new light? I've not read your articles but would be pleased to do so. If you wish you can email me at makhno9 @ gmail.com

This is from a post I made in 2007 with more available to view at

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=3155

So, one way to look at this 1865 arrest is that Conover/Dunham and his two cohorts (Merritt and Montgomery) were the source of the name "Dr. Blackburn", given to Holt and the military commission in the weeks leading up to the trial of the 8 conspirators; the military commission cabled out the name, which was recognized by officials in St. Louis, leading to Tumblety's arrest. When, to Conover's surprise, the military commission actually produced a "JH Blackburn" in the form of Tumblety, Conover invented the David Harold connection (Harold was a pharmacists assistant by occupation) in an attempt to cover up his fraudulant testimony about there actually being a "Dr. Blackburn" involved with Booth in a yellow fever plot.
What I mean here is, that there was no "Dr. Blackburn", Luke Pryor or otherwise, involved in a plot to spread yellow fever or contaminate New York's water supply. The plot was a Conover/Merritt/Montgomery invention. Testified to at the conspiracy trial by Hyman (see following post), who later, along with Conover, would be accused of perjury.
Luke Pryor Blackburn of course existed (later govenor of Kentucky), but Conover or Hyman never identifies him by any first name, only by "Dr. Blackburn", and so that easily led to the confusion between Luke Pryor and a certain "JH" Blackburn.
All of Conover's claims began to quickly fall apart in the eyes of Stanton (leading to Tumblety's release), and although Holt and the commission continued to argue of a "Grand Conspiracy" in their summation, they knew that no reliable evidence existed to support their theory.

JM

[mklhawley]

Caz! Oh, Caz! You still have not replied to my resonse to your post. If someone is in personal contact with Caz, please let her know that I replied to her JTR Forums Littlechild comments, but she seems to be ignoring me. I can understand why, though.

How does his Boulogne comment have anything to do with Tumblety being 'a very likely suspect' in the eyes of Scoltand Yard? His 'very likely suspect' comment was corroborated by Assistant Commissioner Anderson personally soliciting information important to the Whitechapel murder investigation specific to Francis Tumblety from Chief of Police in North America in November 1888. If he was talking through his teeth, then you are assuming Littlechild received all of the correct factual information on Tumblety's November arrest and escape from the US press. Impossible, since he would have known that Tumblety made it to the shores of the US. If you are saying that Littlechild was lying through his teeth, that is improbably, because his suspect status has been confirmed by SRA himself.

Sincerely,

Mike

[mklhawley]

Greetings all,

I promised a second post about other reports connecting Francis Tumblety with prostitutes. First, from James Maguire, a former valet of Francis Tumblety,

St. Louis Republic, January 17, 1889:
LOUISVILLE, Jan. 16. – Mr. James D. Maguire, at present cashier of a restaurant in this city, believes that Dr. Tumblety is really the Whitechapel fiend. Mr. Maguire acted as Tumblety’s valet for a time in St. Louis and knows the man quite well… “Tumblety is not altogether unworthy of consideration in connection with the Whitechapel crimes. He has always been outspoken, if not notorious as a woman-hater. In all that is known of his life in the past 30 years he has never been mixed up with or made himself the companion of females. His antipathy to fallen women has been especially marked…

This actually leads to the December 1888 comments of someone who knew Francis Tumblety beginning over a quarter of a century prior to the murders. This person was Charles Dunham. Because ripperologists have been under the misconception that Charles Dunham was a pathological liar, his commented have been relegated as untrustworthy, thus, we seem to have forgotten what he stated about Francis Tumblety. Last year, I had written two articles on Charles Dunham, demonstrating that he was far from being a pathological liar (the job description for a Civil War double agent was convincing deception, but that was only during the Civil War and the presidential assassination fiasco) AND that lying about Tumblety in 1888 would have been out of character for him. If we put Dunham in a new light, note what he stated about Tumblety,

Rochester Democrat and Republican, 3 December 1888,
Special to the New York World.
LONDON, Dec. 1.
…When to my knowledge of the man’s history, his idiosyncrasies, his revolting practices, his antipathy to women, and especially to fallen women.”
…Some one asked why he had not invited some women to his dinner. His face instantly became as black as a thunder cloud. He had a pack of cards in his hand, but he laid them down and said, almost savagely: 'No, Colonel, I don't know any such cattle, and if I did I would, as your friend, sooner give you a dose of quick poison than take you into such danger.' He then broke into a homily on the sin and folly of dissipation, fiercely denounced all woman and especially fallen women.

Note how Dunham's comments are corroborated by the British article, information which was received not from Dunham but from London. Tumblety’s misogynist ideology and hatred of prostitutes had been entrenched in his mind for decades before the murders.

Sincerely,
Mike

[auspirograph]

No offense taken Don, thanks for your input...

[Supe]

Spiro,

My post was in response to a statement by Howard in post # 3 on this thread. Sorry if pointing out a historical solecism, whatever the topic, offended you. I shall now step back and let you and Howard continue to slang each other.

Don.

[auspirograph]

Don,

I'm not sure what your previous post has to do with the topic of this thread but the humor is not lost, just in the wrong place mate. A tad off-topic, like Mr. Brown's tangents. Certainly Revere did not say, "The Aussies are coming..." That would qualify for a round of ashes...

Do you have anything constructive left to add to this discussion?

[Supe]

Everyone knows Revere said or something close to, "The British are coming"....but most don't know what he did for a living.

What Revere actually said remains mired in the mists of history, but he most assuredly did not say "The British are coming" since the troops, crown-appointed officials AND the colonists all considered themselves to be British at that time. Historian David Hackett Fisher's suggestion it was probably "The Regulars are out" has a sensible ring to it.

Don.

[auspirograph]

Hi Spiro !
Nick any good research material lately ?

No Howard, I documented information above and beyond that found on the internet. I see nothing wrong with having made a contribution to the subject.

However, the uncredited appropriation of scanned documents from public digital archives for content on a site could well be regarded as 'nicking'.

Mike,

I think your point on Littlechild having read the dossier on Tumblety could be expanded to his having written the entries, though the files are not extant. Though it is known that Swanson and Anderson also made entries, Macnaghten, as Chief Constable was entrusted with maintaining them.

Hence, any CID noted interest in the Whitechapel murders, which is now known to have included a Special Branch investigation, was accessible to them. So I think your work on Anderson's American interest in Tumblety confirms police interest in him as a suspect, whether he was the killer or not.

After all, what is a murder mystery without suspects...

Thanks again for your interesting contribution to the subject.

[Howard Brown]

Mike Hawley
Since I just sent in my "remove my membership" email to the person in charge, I'll post responses on the Forums from now on.

[Howard Brown]

Hi Spiro !
Nick any good research material lately ?

Mike:

By all means, since you're not an unsupervised azzhole ( or an azzhole, period ) like Spiro...feel free to use thread material from the Forums.
Tsk,tsk...you still can't write for spit, Spiro.
Frankly, I almost fainted....seeing that you actually posted without trying to sell your book.

[mklhawley]

Hi Spiro,

I'm glad that you pointed out about presenting useful material worth examining. It's all about discovering the truth.



To Caz:

Since these two threads are joined at the hip, I believe it’s ok for me to respond to your JTR Forum comments here. You stated to Jonathan:

Caz: Just a quick one here if I may, Jonathan. You demonstrate with your very next words why we can all say as a fact that we are more informed about Tumblety than Littlechild claimed to be when he was writing to Sims: “On the other hand, who told the retired head of Secret Dept. that it was 'believed' the American had taken his own life ...?”


Your convoluted logic is this; if there is one mistake, then we can now consider everything Littlechild stated as probably incorrect. Note, though, how Littlechild recalled all of the November 1888 events accurately, which automatically debunks your point. The only way Littlechild would have known such detail is if he was privy to the November 1888 investigation on Tumblety (If he received this info from US newspapers, then he would have known that Tumblety was alive and well in the US). We have additional evidence. Littlechild states,

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. …but his feelings toward women were remarkable and bitter in the extreme, a fact on record.

This can only mean that Littlechild read Tumblety’s file. We know that Littlechild was not running the Tumblety investigation, so for him to make a mistake about a post November incident is understandable. It does not discount the reality of him knowing so much about Tumblety's November investigation.

There is one fact that we today are informed of, but Littlechild most likely knew it as well. Assistant Commissioner Anderson personally solicited Brooklyn’s Chief of Police (and most likely San Francisco’s since it occurred at the same time) for information on Jack the Ripper suspect Francis Tumblety. Why would he get personally involved with a nobody suspect? It doesn’t make sense and it doesn’t match Littlechild’s statements in the least.


Caz: Since we don't know that Littlechild would even have considered Tumblety in the running if he had kept tabs on him beyond 1888 and knew that, rather than topping himself in the wake of the 'last' murder, he had been alive and well until he had died a relatively old man in 1903, I'm not sure how safe it is for anyone today to describe the quack doc as a 'very likely' suspect, let alone a 'prime' one.

Not only is this merely hypothetical, it is now irrelevant, since Littlechild clearly read Tumblety’s file and knew firsthand what CID was doing with Tumblety. This is something we will never have the opportunity to do.


Caz: It is fairly evident that Macnaghten's conjecture regarding Druitt had much to do with the fact and timing of his suicide, so the same could have been the case with Littlechild, except that while Druitt was 'said to be' a doctor but was nothing of the kind, Tumblety was 'believed to have' committed suicide but had done nothing of the kind.

Irrelevant, since you’re just plain wrong. Littlechild read the file.


Caz: If both policemen were ideally looking for a sexually depraved man with some medical experience who couldn't go on living after the bloodbath in Miller's Court, it appears they were not fully aware that their best bet suspects had failed to meet their own ripper criteria.


Why? Do you know who Jack the Ripper was? Sounds like you are absolutely confident he was sexually depraved, or that Scotland Yard ignored any suspect who was not sexually depraved. Sexual depravity had nothing to do with Francis Tumblety, and that’s not why he was a suspect in the eyes of Scotland Yard.


Sincerely,

Mike

[auspirograph]

It was then intriguing on how entrenched people were about still rejecting Tumblety even being considered a suspect [my emphasis] even though new discoveries clarified misconceptions. It was clearly a case of what psychologists call assimilation vs. accommodation.

Good work Mike, careful and thought provoking. All useful stuff I would say, at least it presents material on Tumblety worthy of examination.

I'm not sure what Howard Brown is rambling on about as usual, or what beliefs he now promotes. Surely his site-centric view of the Whitechapel murders lacks something, as does much of internet speculation.

Some research, it appears, is regarded as more equal than to others for whatever reasons a particular bias forms. To borrow an observation of George Orwell.

[The Good Michael]

Good point; it’s just that it doesn’t take Tumblety’s writing style into account. Tumblety was complaining to Caine about the Chinese, and to emphasize his point of how low they are, he compared them to something Tumblety believed to be very low. One should read Neil Story’s book and see how Tumblety embellished things to the extreme when complaining, as he did when comparing Chinese to prostitutes. For example,

Hi Mike,

I was only referring to the one particular passage and not to anything else. And again, this reference was to the MOST DEGRADED prostitutes. I am a man who finds prostitution an uncomfortable situation in society, and had I been a man of his times, with the belief of myself as someone of higher society, and almost nobility, I doubt I would have refrained from saying similar things. Yet I probably wouldn't have disparaged against the Chinese. Who knows.

Cheers,

Mike

[mklhawley]

Mike :

If its okay with you, I'd prefer to wait until your article appears before rollin' around in the hay over the issue.
I understand that you feel that the article ( Sheffield) provides an example of your original statement, of which I started a thread over yonder in Hellville....

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread....564#post197564

" ( Tumblety) exhibited erratic behavior with unfortunates (according to a few accounts) Mike Hawley
"With" prostitutes as in being in actual contact with them, rather than talking trash about them from a distance with his male friends. The newspaper article and the Caine letter don't demonstrate Tumblety being in contact with them on a physical basis. Perhaps you'd care to rephrase the italicized line.
As I said, I'm looking forward to your article

Hi Howard,

I read the thread on JTR Forums, and of course I see Trevor is still upset at me for beginning the thread that disassembled his anti-Tumblety article. He still doesn’t get that he was just plain wrong. You made the comment that I’ve always been a pro-Tumblety guy. Guilty. When I started this, I was impressed by Stewart Evans’ depth of research, which was very convincing. It still impresses me. It was only after this that I saw anti-Tumblety material, and most of it was weak, such as, Tumblety was too tall, he was too gay, his mustache was too big. Some of it, though, seemed rather convincing. I then saw Joe Chetcuti’s and Roger Palmer’s responses, which seemed to answer questions. The problem was that both sides could not be true, so I began to do what I was trained to do; research the research. I researched Evans’ and the anti-Tumblety material, and guess which side had the major holes.

It was then intriguing on how entrenched people were about still rejecting Tumblety even being considered a suspect even though new discoveries clarified misconceptions. It was clearly a case of what psychologists call assimilation vs. accommodation.

Back to your challenge. Excellent question. Here’s what I posted to Fisherman in its entirety,

You nailed part of it. In the case of Tumblety, he was an American (Americanisms in the Dear Boss letter), was wearing an American slouch hat (Constables were on the lookout for this), and exhibited erratic behavior with unfortunates (according to a few accounts). This is why he was brought into the station 'on suspicion'. …but that's not what Littlechild was involved for back at Headquarters. Once they realized who they had, things changed.

The last sentence explains what I meant, numerous accounts which brought him into the station. In the Daily Telegraph and the Sheffield and Rottherdam Independent, it said, ‘who is famous for his hatred of women, and who has repeatedly made threats against females of dissolute character.’ Repeated threats (numerous accounts) was why he was suspected. I was not focused upon multiple accounts of Tumblety interacting with female prostitutes throughout his lifetime. This would be incorrect, since he tried to avoid anything female. …although, that is not entirely true, but that’s for the future. I’m the last person to think that if Tumblety was Jack the Ripper, it is because he was a sado-sexual serial killer. According to the FBI, there are numerous serial offender motives that fit both Francis Tumblety AND Jack the Ripper. …but that’s in the article.

Sincerely,
Mike