Tumblety & Prostitutes

[caz]

Hi Mike,
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,

“The proprietor of that filthy sheet ‘The Leader’ is the Champion Black Mailer of England. He is on of the most infamous scoundrels ever vomited upon the earth from the basement story of hell… He is worse than the Colorado potato beetle."

He used the prostitute like he used the Colorado potato beetle. I’d say the earlier article showed what he thought about prostitutes.

Sincerely,
Mike

Hi Mike,

You complained that I was ignoring you here, but I'm not psychic and only just saw this thread by chance. I don't have time to read many these days.

If Tumblety 'embellished things to the extreme when complaining', then you have to take that into account when he talks negatively about prostitutes and make the necessary adjustment. In short, he doesn't just complain about prossies to the extreme. Otherwise, by the same token, you'd have to argue that his rant against the proprietor of The Leader demonstrates that he would have slit the man's throat given half a chance, ripped him up and whipped out a kidney.

I don't suppose you have seen anything written by old Tumblebum along the lines of:

"The filthy Spitalfields harlot is one of the most infamous characters who ever vomited upon the earth from the basement storey of hell... She is worse than the sewer rat."

Do you see what I'm getting at?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

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.

Not at all, Mike. I was merely exploring the possible reasons for Littlechild talking bollocks when writing to Sims that Tumblety was never heard of again after leaving France at the end of November 1888 and there were no more ripper murders after that (McKenzie and Coles, anyone?) so it was believed that he committed suicide.

Plain fact is, if Littlechild knew that was a lie, why did he choose to mislead Sims? Was it because he was throwing him Tumblety as a convenient red herring to steer him away from his Dr. D for Druitt?

Alternatively, if Littlechild was genuinely ignorant of the fact that Tumblety had died a relatively old man in 1903, without resuming his slaughter of harlots across the pond, might that knowledge have diluted his 'very likely' suspect status?

That's all I was asking.

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.

Of course I don't know who the ripper was. What has that to do with what I wrote? It was Macnaghten who clearly expected his ripper to be sexually insane, and Littlechild who waxed lyrical to Sims about men with 'contrary sexual instincts and degenerationes' tending to be cruel, when putting his case for Tumblety being a 'very likely' ripper suspect. Was he misleading Sims about this too?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

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.

As I said, Mike, I'm not psychic and had not seen this thread until now. So less of the 'I can understand why, though' nonsense please. It doesn't become you.

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.

It was Littlechild's own stated opinion ('to my mind'), when writing in 1913, that Tumblety was a 'very likely' suspect. How do you get from there to a 'very likely' one in the eyes of Scotland Yard? Also, in 1913 he was claiming that Tumblety had never been heard of again after leaving France at the end of November 1888, so clearly he was deliberately lying to Sims or misleading him if he knew different.

So was this all about bigging up his own suspect for the ripper murders? Was it designed to steer Sims away from Druitt by dangling another supposed doctor who had supposedly killed himself? Or was it down to genuine ignorance of the facts or a poor memory?

Just asking.

Love,

Caz
X

[mklhawley]

As I said, Mike, I'm not psychic and had not seen this thread until now. So less of the 'I can understand why, though' nonsense please. It doesn't become you.

I'm sorry Caz. You are absolutely right. That was a cheap shot. I was feeling ignored and unloved, so I used a sophomoric ploy. Let me make it up to you. When I ever get to London, I will treat you to some coffee at that MacDonalds on Whitechapel Road where the Chamber of Horrors wax museum was (I can't afford too much, since I have six kids!)

You complained that I was ignoring you here, but I'm not psychic and only just saw this thread by chance. I don't have time to read many these days.

If Tumblety 'embellished things to the extreme when complaining', then you have to take that into account when he talks negatively about prostitutes and make the necessary adjustment. In short, he doesn't just complain about prossies to the extreme. Otherwise, by the same token, you'd have to argue that his rant against the proprietor of The Leader demonstrates that he would have slit the man's throat given half a chance, ripped him up and whipped out a kidney.

We do need to make necessary adjustments, but we have to adjust based upon corroborating evidence. If he had no other reports that he not only had an extreme hatred of women but fallen women, then we could relegate it to a case like the proprietor of the Leader, BUT the US reports, the British reports, Littlechild, and Anderson all corroborate this.

I don't suppose you have seen anything written by old Tumblebum along the lines of:

"The filthy Spitalfields harlot is one of the most infamous characters who ever vomited upon the earth from the basement storey of hell... She is worse than the sewer rat."

Do you see what I'm getting at?

But he DID single out the Spitalfield harlots and did even worse; he was in their face! Note the British report, “…who is famous for his hatred of women, and who has repeatedly made threats against females of dissolute character." This is what has corroborating evidence from primary sources. Now, one could claim the British article got its facts wrong, but that’s what Stewart Evans has been trying to explain to Tumblety detractors for years. In order to believe Tumblety was not a significant suspect in November 1888, one must claim that ALL of the US and British reports are wrong and that the Home Secretary on down lied.

Not at all, Mike. I was merely exploring the possible reasons for Littlechild talking bollocks when writing to Sims that Tumblety was never heard of again after leaving France at the end of November 1888 and there were no more ripper murders after that (McKenzie and Coles, anyone?) so it was believed that he committed suicide.

Plain fact is, if Littlechild knew that was a lie, why did he choose to mislead Sims? Was it because he was throwing him Tumblety as a convenient red herring to steer him away from his Dr. D for Druitt?

So Caz, we are in agreement on a few things. First, the Tumblety detractors who claim Littlechild was old and his memory was bad are wrong. Second, the Tumblety detractors who claim that Littlechild was not privy to the November Tumblety/Ripper investigation are wrong. I just see his mistake on the post November info as a case of no longer being involved, therefore, only post-November info later (from Macnaghten? Just as Spiro stated, he was in charge of the files). CID needed his assistance in November, because that’s when Tumblety was arrested on suspicion; therefore, they needed to know everything about him, including his Irish nationalist stuff. Sir Robert Anderson certainly would have had the pull to bring Littlechild in on it. Since it was a CID issue, once Littlechild provided the info, his part was done.

Alternatively, if Littlechild was genuinely ignorant of the fact that Tumblety had died a relatively old man in 1903, without resuming his slaughter of harlots across the pond, might that knowledge have diluted his 'very likely' suspect status?

Not in the least. You are assuming that if Tumblety was the killer, he was a sado-sexual serial killer with continued sexual desires. The evidence does not support this serial motive.

Of course I don't know who the ripper was. What has that to do with what I wrote? It was Macnaghten who clearly expected his ripper to be sexually insane, and Littlechild who waxed lyrical to Sims about men with 'contrary sexual instincts and degenerationes' tending to be cruel, when putting his case for Tumblety being a 'very likely' ripper suspect. Was he misleading Sims about this too?

They did not arrest Tumblety for being gay nor did they suspect him because of this. He was suspected because of his hatred of women AND because of his treatment of these harlots on the street.

It was Littlechild's own stated opinion ('to my mind'), when writing in 1913, that Tumblety was a 'very likely' suspect. How do you get from there to a 'very likely' one in the eyes of Scotland Yard?

Because Sir Robert Anderson personally solicited information from US Chiefs of Police for information on Ripper suspect Francis Tumblety, AND because of the contemporary newspaper reports corroborating it.


Sincerely,

Mike

[mklhawley]

Greetings all,

I certainly appreciate Howard Brown starting a thread on JTR Forums about my article, Tumblety the Woman Hater, which was in the April 2013 issue of the Journal of the Whitechapel Society. It brings the discussion to the forefront. The problem is that in his attempt to debunk the article, he has inadvertently created a strawman argument. Instead of debunking the article, he has debunked his interpretation of the article. I decided to reply to his comments on this thread, since it seems his true agenda is to continue this discussion.

Howard stated,

“Mike's article lists 5 quotes from a newspaper reporter, an associate and police officials, which Mike contends support the contemporaneous view that since Tumblety hated women, his candidature as being the Ripper is feasible.”
“Mike claims that these 5 are contemporary evidence that he was a woman hater.”



Actually, I was not using these five sources as evidence that Tumblety was a woman hater or his feasibility as a Ripper suspect as Howard claims. Here’s what I actually wrote,


If we follow contemporary evidence, the most common reason stated as to why Francis Tumblety was a Scotland Yard murder suspect is that he was a woman hater. Note just five of the many sources,
(1)“… his feelings toward women were remarkable and bitter in the extreme, a fact on record.” (Chief Inspector Littlechild, 1913)
(2)“He was known as a thorough woman-hater and as a man who never associated with or mixed with women of any kind.” (William Pinkerton, November 19, 1888)
(3)“…and in New York his behavior was that of a man who had no liking for women.” (San Francisco Chief of Police Patrick Crowley, San Francisco Examiner, November 23, 1888)
(4)When asked about Dr. Tumblety's aversion to women, McGarry said: "He always disliked women very much. He used to say to me: 'Martin, no women for me.' He could not bear to have them near him…” (New York World, Dec 5, 1888)
(5)"You are accused of being a woman-hater. What have you to say to that?" (New York World reporter interviewing Tumblety, January 1889).


Instead of using these sources as evidence of Tumblety being a woman hater or why he should be considered a Ripper suspect, I was using them to demonstrate why SCOTLAND YARD considered Francis Tumblety a whitechapel murder suspect in November 1888. I used Chief Inspector Littlechild’s comments because he was in Scotland Yard during the murders. I used Chief of Police Crowley’s comments, because he was in communications with Assistant Commissioner Anderson about Ripper suspect Francis Tumblety in November 1888. I used William Pinkerton’s comments, because he was at Scotland Yard weeks prior to this interview (and other reasons which will come out in a later article). I used the New York World reporter’s interview with Tumblety, because it demonstrates that readers knew about Scotland Yard’s interest in Tumblety and his hatred of women being the big issue connecting him with the Whitechapel murders. I used McGarry’s comments, because another reporter asked about Tumblety’s hatred of women, which meant that the readership knew that Tumblety being a Scotland Yard Ripper suspect was because of his hatred of women.

My reasoning for this was to set the stage for the introduction of a different anti-Tumblety claim that Scotland Yard merely suspected Francis Tumblety because of the less than credible reason of him being gay, their claim arguing that the term ‘woman hater’ was merely a euphemism for being gay. Both sides of the Tumblety argument are actually in agreement that Tumblety was considered a woman hater, so why would I be concerned about this? My plan was to demonstrate that ‘women hater’ actually meant hatred of women in the case of Francis Tumblety by introducing corroborating NEW evidence (other than the five sources above). I then provided evidence to show why Tumblety being gay is actually irrelevant when comes to him possibly being the killer.

Howard then goes on to say,

I contend that they may explain a dislike for women....in a sexual way....but certainly not when it came to doing business with them. I also contend that there is still no evidence that Tumblety had any contact with fallen women, unfortunates, or prostitutes, however you want to describe them, as Mike has claimed…
In fact, these quotes support the view that Tumblety was not known to associate with prostitutes, not the other way around as Mike claims.

Howard then claiming that these five pieces of evidence is my evidence for Tumblety hating unfortunates is ridiculous, and to suggest that I claimed this evidence also confirms his association with them is just plain wrong. I never claimed this in the article, and actually I agree that he rarely associated with them. Howard then argues that Tumblety not associating with them for most of his life somehow confirms a minimal hatred of women not enough for a person to kill unfortunates. Tumblety not associating with women, especially unfortunates, throughout his life actually supports my later conclusions in the article. If he associated with them all of his life, that would mean he liked them. It all makes sense when we see that the Daily Telegraph cable stated,

…who has repeatedly made threats against females of dissolute character.

This was the product of a cable source from within London. A person, a known woman hater, was making threats to East End harlots AT THE TIME OF THE MURDERS. Consider this with the understanding that Chief Inspector Littlechild singled out Tumblety’s hatred of women as the reason for their suspicions. This is not a minimal hatred of women and it involved the East End unfortunates. I used this not only to explain why Scotland Yard took him seriously, but I then present serial killer motives which conform to both the Ripper killings and Francis Tumblety; based upon the evidence.

Sincerely,

Mike

[caz]

I'm sorry Caz. You are absolutely right. That was a cheap shot. I was feeling ignored and unloved, so I used a sophomoric ploy. Let me make it up to you. When I ever get to London, I will treat you to some coffee at that MacDonalds on Whitechapel Road where the Chamber of Horrors wax museum was (I can't afford too much, since I have six kids!)

Apology unnecessary, Mike, but accepted.

We do need to make necessary adjustments, but we have to adjust based upon corroborating evidence. If he had no other reports that he not only had an extreme hatred of women but fallen women, then we could relegate it to a case like the proprietor of the Leader, BUT the US reports, the British reports, Littlechild, and Anderson all corroborate this.

Fair enough, but if all these reports were the result of Tumblety being outspoken and indulging in hyperbole when having a whinge about certain characters (as with the unfortunate proprietor of the Leader), I'm really not convinced that his expressed hatred of prossies, including verbal threats made against that class of woman, should have been seen as evidence that he was very likely to have engaged with any for the purposes of murdering and mutilating them.

In order to believe Tumblety was not a significant suspect in November 1888, one must claim that ALL of the US and British reports are wrong and that the Home Secretary on down lied.

I believe Littlechild when he told Sims in 1913 that Tumblety had been among the suspects; but how 'significant' a suspect he was considered to be within Scotland Yard is not something I feel able to judge. Certainly Anderson, Swanson and Macnaghten all eventually plumped for someone other than Tumblety as their most likely suspect. How many cops in the know were left believing that the real ripper got away in the shape of Tumblety?

So Caz, we are in agreement on a few things. First, the Tumblety detractors who claim Littlechild was old and his memory was bad are wrong. Second, the Tumblety detractors who claim that Littlechild was not privy to the November Tumblety/Ripper investigation are wrong. I just see his mistake on the post November info as a case of no longer being involved, therefore, only post-November info later (from Macnaghten? Just as Spiro stated, he was in charge of the files). CID needed his assistance in November, because that’s when Tumblety was arrested on suspicion; therefore, they needed to know everything about him, including his Irish nationalist stuff. Sir Robert Anderson certainly would have had the pull to bring Littlechild in on it. Since it was a CID issue, once Littlechild provided the info, his part was done.

Eh? What I am saying is that if Littlechild thought, as late as 1913, that Tumblety had vanished without trace in late November 1888 after leaving France, never to be seen again, and therefore appeared to have done away with himself, then his reasons for thinking he made a 'very likely' suspect would have included this supposed explanation for the murders ending, ie the ripper was no more, and was therefore no longer a threat to fallen women. If he had known the quack had lived on across the pond, not murdering women, might his views on the matter not have altered? There is no way of telling, but if he did know, he was misremembering when writing to Sims, or being deliberately misleading.

You are assuming that if Tumblety was the killer, he was a sado-sexual serial killer with continued sexual desires. The evidence does not support this serial motive.

I am assuming nothing of the kind. Littlechild told Sims that there was no actual evidence of Tumblety having been a sadist, but he went on to say that men with 'contrary sexual instincts' (presumably a reference to him being gay) tended to be cruel. So he combines the man's expressed bitterness towards females with his homosexuality and supposed disappearance/suicide after the last murder to produce a 'very likely' suspect, who probably had tendencies to be physically cruel. I don't care what the 'evidence' does or does not support; this is what Littlechild thought.

Love,

Caz
X

[mklhawley]

I am assuming nothing of the kind. Littlechild told Sims that there was no actual evidence of Tumblety having been a sadist, but he went on to say that men with 'contrary sexual instincts' (presumably a reference to him being gay) tended to be cruel. So he combines the man's expressed bitterness towards females with his homosexuality and supposed disappearance/suicide after the last murder to produce a 'very likely' suspect, who probably had tendencies to be physically cruel. I don't care what the 'evidence' does or does not support; this is what Littlechild thought.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

Good points, but I want to reply to one. I disagree with you on why Littlechild spoke of contrary sexual instincts. He was not saying that both his hatred of women and his love of men caused him to be a suspect, he was saying his hatred of women (and other actions as per the British primary source) caused him to be a suspect, and Littlechild then discussed his opinion about those with contrary sexual feelings. Notice that he separated the 'suspected due to hatred of women' issue and the 'lover of men' issue with an entirely different subject (the origins of the term Jack the Ripper).

Sincerely,
Mike

[mklhawley]

continued...

Keep in mind, Littlechild's 'a very likely one' comment connects directly to 'but his feelings toward women were remarkable and bitter in the extreme' and not at all connected to his last paragraph about contrary sexual feelings.


"I never heard of a Dr D. in connection with the Whitechapel murders 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."

Sincerely,
Mike

[caz]

That's fine, Mike, but his observation about men, like Wilde, with contrary sexual instincts (who enjoyed a good thrashing, either the giving or receiving) was hardly a non sequitur, apropos of nothing; he must have been relating this back to Tumblety, in support of his theory that those bitter feelings towards women had been a lot more than just feelings.

And there was no such separation between the bitter feelings and the nonsense about never being heard of after the last murder, and the erroneous belief that he had topped himself.

Love,

Caz
X

[mklhawley]

That's fine, Mike, but his observation about men, like Wilde, with contrary sexual instincts (who enjoyed a good thrashing, either the giving or receiving) was hardly a non sequitur, apropos of nothing; he must have been relating this back to Tumblety, in support of his theory that those bitter feelings towards women had been a lot more than just feelings.

And there was no such separation between the bitter feelings and the nonsense about never being heard of after the last murder, and the erroneous belief that he had topped himself.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

It's illogical to assume that when Littlechild was privy to Tumblety being a Ripper suspect in November 1888 (recall that Anderson personally contacted US chiefs of police about Tumblety as a Ripper suspect), if Anderson and company relegated Tumblety a minor suspect, Littlechild would not have even considered Tumblety. 'Amongst the suspects' meant the top suspects, and Littlechild considered from this list. 'Amongst the suspects' could not have meant each and every Jack that was dragged in by a constable for suspicious behavior. Littlechild would NEVER has said 'very likely'. Don't continue to push convoluted logic.


For Littlechild to not know what happened to Tumblety post-November 24, fits the actual chain of events, since Littlechild's role was primarily combatting the violent types of the Irish movements. By March of 1889, he was in front of Parliament talking Parnell stuff. Littlechild was a busy man and assisting in the Tumblety investigation was not his role. It's clear he merely passed onto his old boss the Tumblety Special Branch file.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Siobhan Patricia Mulcahy]

Hi Mike,
Just came across this JtR site with information on Prostitution in Whitechapel in 1888. Seems to be well researched and sources are mentioned for material.
Might help you (if you haven't seen it before).

http://www.jack-the-ripper.org/1888-prostitution.htm

[mklhawley]

Hi Mike,
Just came across this JtR site with information on Prostitution in Whitechapel in 1888. Seems to be well researched and sources are mentioned for material.
Might help you (if you haven't seen it before).
http://www.jack-the-ripper.org/1888-prostitution.htm

Thanks Siobhan,

I certainly will check it out in more detail. His prostitution info looks well researched. I did notice that his Tumblety information is way out of date and his conclusions are now just plain wrong. It's time for him to update!

Sincerely,
Mike

[moonbegger]

Hello Mike ,

Firstly , I would like to thank you for your informative response on a previous thread some time back ( New Ripper Angle )

It certainly is quite coincidental that the big Cleveland Street scandal was in 1889 and was headed by Inspector Abberline. Since the Cleveland Street brothel was for the wealthy homosexual subculture, I’m sure Tumblety knew all about it.

Is there the slightest possibility that Aberline & Co may have been in place to apprehend a returning Tumblety ?

cheers ,

moonbegger

[mklhawley]

Hi Moonbegger,

Interesting question. From a couple of sources, Tumblety seems to have been traveling to England in the 1880s twice a year, but always coming back to New York and even Toronto. If there was a reason he was going to England so much other than just to hang out (Scotland Yard did not know where his money was coming from, especially since it seems he rarely withdrew money from his many accounts. Maybe there was a hidden income source in England or Toronto.), then maybe he wanted to go there. Joe Chetcuti discovered a post-1888 request to the Canadian Prime Minister by Tumblety to be allowed into Canada again. Of course, Tumblety discontinued his bi-annual trips to England, because he would have been arrested on the spot and incarcerated.

Even though Tumblety got into serious trouble in Canada, he certainly did return to that country. Maybe Scotland Yard did consider the possibility that Tumblety would someday return.

The fact that England even pursued the gross indecency law demonstrates that they were getting fed up with the homosexual subculture, but as we found out in the Cleveland Street Scandal, prominent people were involved. I see Abberline put into place not so much for Tumblety but because of the sensitivity of this issue. I may be wrong, but I see Abberline focused on East End Ripper suspects and any West End 'Jekyll and Hyde' Ripper suspects (I'd put Tumblety in this category) were dealt with by Headquarters, such as Andrews. Andrews had arrested the Canadian Barnett during the murders, yet Walter Dew stated he was involved in the Ripper case.

Sincerely,
Mike

[caz]

Hi Caz,

It's illogical to assume that when Littlechild was privy to Tumblety being a Ripper suspect in November 1888 (recall that Anderson personally contacted US chiefs of police about Tumblety as a Ripper suspect), if Anderson and company relegated Tumblety a minor suspect, Littlechild would not have even considered Tumblety. 'Amongst the suspects' meant the top suspects, and Littlechild considered from this list. 'Amongst the suspects' could not have meant each and every Jack that was dragged in by a constable for suspicious behavior. Littlechild would NEVER has said 'very likely'. Don't continue to push convoluted logic.

I won't if you won't, Mike.

I will merely continue to push the simple fact that Littlechild's knowledge of Tumblety ends in November 1888, and by the time he wrote to Sims, Anderson, to name just one, must have long since given up on the quack doc being a suspect at all, never mind a 'very likely' one.

Love,

Caz
X