Tumblety & Prostitutes

[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]

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]

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[auspirograph]

Pathological Liars

What detractors of Tumblety's complicity in the Whitechapel murders do not address in this Dunham affair is that the December 1888 article comes after his arrest and does not account alone for the suspicions. It adds to them and aligns with the Littlechild letter of 1913. Reports of Tumblety's 'hatred' of women come from a number of separated sources.

However, the question of Dunham as a reliable source is a vexed one complicated by the machinations of Civil War propaganda and misinformation. This too is rarely addressed along with the question of motive for the accusations made against Tumblety. It is said that the Dunham conspiracy was directed at him to take the heat off themselves. But why target Tumblety at all? What motive to tarnish his reputation after the fact both in 1865 and 1888. Tumblety is also known as a pathological liar so it is logical to accept that it may well be one man's word against another. Dunham obviously knew the character of the man well which included his weaknesses.

Dunham was also known as a journalist and in 1865, Tumblety publicly responded to his arrest and the accusations after his release as they became unsustainable. Though he delivers a tirade upon the Secretary of War in his 1866 and 1872 reprinted pamphlet, here he becomes most conciliatory and significantly notes the source of the accusations as "some of the Northern journals".

He wrote this letter in his defence to the Washington Star. It was reprinted with some poetic license in The New York Times and The Chicago Tribune.

KIRKWOOD HOUSE. WASHINGTON, D.C., June 8 1865

To the Editor of the Washington Star:

After three weeks’ imprisonment in the Old Capitol prison in this city, I have been unconditionally and honorably released from confinement by direction of the Secretary of War, there being no evidence whatever to connect me with the yellow fever or assassination plot, with which some of the Northern journals have charged me of having some knowledge.

My arrest appears to have grown out of a statement made in a low, licentious sheet published in New York, to the effect that Dr. Blackburn, who has figured so unenviably in the hellish yellow fever plot, was no other than myself. In reply to this statement I would most respectfully say to an ever generous public, that I do not know this fiend in human form named Dr. Blackburn, nor have I ever seen him in my life. For the truth of this assertion I can bring hundreds of distinguished persons throughout the United States to vouch for my veracity, and, if necessary, can produce certificates from an innumerable number of gentlemen in high official positions.

While in imprisonment I noticed in some of the New York and other Northern papers, a paragraph setting forth that the villain, Harrold[sic], who now stands charged with being one of the conspirators in the atrocious assassination plot, was at one time in my employ. This, too, is false in every particular; and I am at a loss to see how it originated, or to trace it to its origin. For the past five years I have had one man in my employment, and he is yet with me, his character being beyond reproach. I never saw Harrold to my knowledge and I have no desire to see him.

Another paper has gone so far as to inform the public that I was an intimate acquaintance of Booth’s; but this, too, is news to me, as I never spoke to him in my life, or any of his family.

I do hope that the papers which so industriously circulated these reports connecting me with these damnable deeds, to the very great injury of my name and reputation, will do me the justice to pub- lish my release, and the fact of my having been entirely exonerated by the authorities here, who, after a diligent investigation, could obtain no evidence that would in the least tarnish my fair reputation.

I feel it but due to the authorities here to state that while in the Old Capitol I was treated with the utmost kindness and consideration, and was placed in the same quarters assigned to Governor Vance, Governor Brown, Hon. Lamar and others of note.

With these few remarks in justice to myself, I will close by submitting them to the public.

Respectfully

Dr. F. Tumblety

[Supe]

Spiro,

Are you familiar with Mike Hawley's article in the New Independent Review in which he did a fine job of refuting the notion that Tumblety was a "pathological liar"?

Don.

[mklhawley]

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

Thanks Don. Hi JM,

Your information is slightly out of date, being a 2007 post. In 2008, Carmen Cumming, the foremost expert on Charles Dunham, had his book, Devil's Game, published. If you haven't read it and are interested, it's a great read. Roger Palmer and Tim Riordan read it, as well.

As I'd stated earlier, Dunham used deception during the Civil War as a double agent and continued for political reasons in 1865 because of what he knew the Secretary of War, Stanton was up to. Keep in mind, Dunham received a presidential pardon.

Between 1865 and 1888, Dunham was doing lawyer stuff in New York and raising his family. If he had a reputation of being a pathological liar, he really could not have been successful in his business.

Check out his recollections of Tumblety. Aside from a memory error, he was quite accurate.

I will definitely PM you.

Sincerely,

Mike

[auspirograph]

Spiro,

Are you familiar with Mike Hawley's article in the New Independent Review in which he did a fine job of refuting the notion that Tumblety was a "pathological liar"?

Don,

I subscribe to the view that there can be no direct evidence when it comes to the 'pathologies' of the Victorian period.

[mklhawley]

However, the question of Dunham as a reliable source is a vexed one complicated by the machinations of Civil War propaganda and misinformation.[/I]

Hi Spiro,

This is so true, and it's why I very much enjoyed Carmen Cummings' book. He based his research upon research of other experts, in order to glean out the chaos.

Sincerely,

Mike

[auspirograph]

Thanks Mike, yes an excellent work, there's a lot to be said for wide reading of well researched books when it comes to the Whitechapel murders...

[jmenges]

Thanks Mike.

Please tell me what in the information in my 2007 posts I placed above was proven incorrect in the 2008 Cumming book. I would appreciate it.



And Spiro, ****off.

JM

Thanks Don. Hi JM,

Your information is slightly out of date, being a 2007 post. In 2008, Carmen Cumming, the foremost expert on Charles Dunham, had his book, Devil's Game, published. If you haven't read it and are interested, it's a great read. Roger Palmer and Tim Riordan read it, as well.

As I'd stated earlier, Dunham used deception during the Civil War as a double agent and continued for political reasons in 1865 because of what he knew the Secretary of War, Stanton was up to. Keep in mind, Dunham received a presidential pardon.

Between 1865 and 1888, Dunham was doing lawyer stuff in New York and raising his family. If he had a reputation of being a pathological liar, he really could not have been successful in his business.

Check out his recollections of Tumblety. Aside from a memory error, he was quite accurate.

I will definitely PM you.

Sincerely,

Mike

[auspirograph]

And Spiro, ****off.

Not sure what set this off, but the details provided where wrong, somewhat dated and seemed to express unsupported opinion and a slanted interpretation of the sources.

A PM with any grievances would perhaps have been more appropriate. I have therefore reported this as a personal attack and will not engage any further in it to allow Mike's research to be aired.