Proof of Tumblety's Misogyny

[mklhawley]

Again Fisherman, I have absolutely no problem with ripperologists disagreeing with me, I have a problem with you joining in the argument only when I found out what ed's real agenda is and have you try and lead me away from it. So why would ed get so interested in Tumblety at this very moment? Hmmm.

[Fisherman]

The problem with many ripperologists is that they have invested too much time in a suspect, have become obsessed with the guilt of a suspect, and have prejudged based upon emotional feelings stemming from an archaic value system. Only people not invested can see clearly because they may be objective. This is why the Cross, Tumblety, and Hutchinson threads become clogged with emotion. You suspect people need to get out and clear your heads once in a while and do your utmost to prove yourselves wrong instead of always wanting to be annoyingly right. It's what Jesus would have done.

Cheers,

Mike

As for me, Mike, I have tried to prove myself wrong on the Lechmere theory hundreds of time. I failed at each and every occasion.
On the other hand, I have tried to prove myself right about the man hundreds of times too. It resulted in the exact same thing - I failed.
The case can´t be proven either way.

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

mklhawley:

I can guarentee you have not spent the time in Tumblety's life as I have.

Actually, you don´t know anything at all about that, so you are guessing away. Not that you are wrong - you are probably quite correct, since I have never prioritized Tumblety all that much.
I would, however, not settle any disputes between you and me over the man in a percentage accordance with how much time we spent on him. You have your picture of the man, and I have mine. And you know what? You may be wrong and I may be right. Unfair? Perhaps. But life was never meant to be fair.

You need to look closer at WHEN he attemted to gain notoriety. It was primarily because of business, and he was brilliant at breaking into the market of a location and used the newspapers with the assistance of his Liberace-style entrances into the city. We know of his shady side by when he was arrested. He always dressed down, but kept his wealth (diamonds and gold) in his pocket just in case he was arrested. As you know, in the Victorian Era, the upper crust was treated differently, and he exploited this. By the 1880's, he was semi-retired and did not attempt to gain the notoriety as he used to. Being a suspect in the Ripper murders would not have improved his business, since he was basically retired.

So his wish for notoriety was solely based on a wish to do business, whereas he actually never liked notoriety at all otherwise?
It could not have been the other way around? That he enjoyed being noticed, that he liked being written about as the notorious Tumblety, that he sported all that fancy dressing and that handlebar moustache because that was who he wanted to pass himself of as? And then he used this in his business? No? He was really and truly a much more shy guy?

The problem with many ripperologists is they have not taken the time to look deeper.

No, Mike - I think the trouble you are having with other Ripperologists is that they disagree with you. And if they do, they are wrong.

Thanks, by the way, for the eloquent explanation you gave to why you first said that Lechmere is a non-starter, only to then state that you really like him as a suspect! You may feel that you bowed out, but you actually did the exact opposite by your answer.

All the best,
Fisherman

[mklhawley]

Ed!

Nothing is new and I see dated arguments.

I'm no longer accusing you of confirmation bias, I'm accusing you of vindictiveness against a person. I will keep it private for now, but if anyone wants to know his hidden agenda, just PM me.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Lechmere]

Mike
I could just as easily accuse you of confirmation bias – even though you say you consciously seek to check your own – hmmm we are seldom really self-aware.
But I will stick to examining the various accounts and let them speak.

I’m still not clear why you think I have a ‘vindictive’ agenda.
But never mind.
On Siobhan’s thread I pointed out some errors in the newspaper article to which she provided a link. How can that be described as derailing? It may have been a bit like pulling the wings off a butterfly and I may have been a bit ungallant in pointing these errors out but I most certainly was not derailing the tread.
You also accuse me of ‘trolling’ because I didn’t just roll over and accept your version of events with respect to how the news of Tumblety’s arrest and his subsequent ‘secret’ flight (actually I haven’t gone into that much yet) leaked out. I am not the first person to suggest that Tumblety himself was responsible for leaking the information to cover up for his actual arrest for gross indecency.

You have provided instances of Tumblety being described as a woman hater – without being in a position to know what the writer meant by that expression.
You have provided instances of his young male targets stating that Tumblety warned them off against going with fallen women by using horrid language about these ladies of the night. You do not acknowledge that this may just have been part of a gambit by Tumblety to seduce these youths into his clutches.

Let’s take your latest account, from The Inter Ocean (Chicago, Illinois) 4th December 1888
‘A few years after reaching manhood, he evinced a great dislike for women, and constantly spoke of the gentler sex as a curse to the land.’
The significant thing to ask is where did the Inter Ocean get this information from? Only then can we evaluate its worth.

You say that Tumblety had two personas - public and private.
Then you quote from the Philadelphia Times of 8th December which supposedly discussed (very publicly) his private feelings. Can you see the inherent contradiction there?
It also discussed the possibility that Tumblety would go to Chicago to escape his notoriety in New York. Rather like a modern celeb going out in massive sun glasses to escape the attention of the paps.
Yeah a real recluse.

So before the advent of ‘Yellow Journalism’ the New York World was a beacon of truthful reportage?

On 22nd December 1888 it reported a very detailed account of Inspector Andrews’ movements while he was based in Toronto.
Inspector Andrews was the Scotland Yard detective sent to escort a prisoner back to Canada.
They claimed to have interviewed Andrews just as he was departing for Halifax (Nova Scotia) from Montreal, while on his train journey to get his ship back to England.
“It is generally understood, Mr. Andrews, that your stay in this country has been lengthened by certain work you have been doing in connection with the Parnell Commission. Is there any truth in the rumor?”
“I had rather not answer that question,” he replied.
“Will you deny that such was your mission or part of your mission here?”
“Why do you press me? You ought to know that I cannot divulge the secrets of my office.”
“But won’t you say yes or no?”
“No, I will not deny the statement.”
“It is said that you have been very unsuccessful in your efforts; that to try and find bona-fide evidence detrimental to the league is lost time in this country. What has been your experience?”
“I may not have been as successful as could be wished, neither do I think, from my experience, that I have been very unsuccessful. As for its being lost time to look for evidence in America, that is all rot. I am pretty certain that a continual correspondence has gone on for years between Parnell, O’Donovan Rossa and others in this country and western America, who I am not prepared to name, and much of this correspondence will naturally fall in line as evidence against Parnell when the proper time comes to present it.”
“When will that be?”
“I cannot tell you, but it will likely be given within a month, at the next sitting of the Commission.”
“Don’t you want to know something about the Whitechapel murders?”
“No, thank you.” replied the reporter, “I have got quite enough,” and the interview ended.

All true?

I will come onto the text in Littlechild’s letter when I get a chance.

[Lechmere]

Brenda
Yes you can be polite towards people you have disdain for to maybe get them to do things for you.
However Tumbelty had a track record of staying with Mrs Macnamara that preceded the Whitechapel Murders. He could easily have chosen to stay with a male landlord. Why had he long chosen to stay with a female and build up a close rapport with her?

As for his lady relatives, in some there states such kin are of the marrying kind.

[mklhawley]

The problem with many ripperologists is that they have invested too much time in a suspect, have become obsessed with the guilt of a suspect, and have prejudged based upon emotional feelings stemming from an archaic value system. Only people not invested can see clearly because they may be objective. This is why the Cross, Tumblety, and Hutchinson threads become clogged with emotion. You suspect people need to get out and clear your heads once in a while and do your utmost to prove yourselves wrong instead of always wanting to be annoyingly right. It's what Jesus would have done.

Cheers,

Mike

Hey, we agree on something! You should read my first book, Searching for Truth With a Broken Flashlight. I get into detail about this. For example, any time new information comes into the human brain, it gets attached to an emotion (positive or negative). This is called a somatic marker. This guarantees bias in 100% of human beings. Confirmation bias, emphisizing positive evidence and de-emphasizing negative evidence, is a reality, so in science, we have peer review. Ripperology doesn't have this, which is sad. At least we have forums to slam each other.

In view of this, I consciously attempt to check my bias at the door. Because of this, I will never be entirely convinced of Tumblety's guilt, but on the flip side, I can clearly see anti-Tumblety bias.

Sincerely,

Mike

[The Good Michael]

Slight misunderstanding of what I was getting at. I can guarentee you have not spent the time in Tumblety's life as I have. You need to look closer at WHEN he attemted to gain notoriety. It was primarily because of business, and he was brilliant at breaking into the market of a location and used the newspapers with the assistance of his Liberace-style entrances into the city. We know of his shady side by when he was arrested. He always dressed down, but kept his wealth (diamonds and gold) in his pocket just in case he was arrested. As you know, in the Victorian Era, the upper crust was treated differently, and he exploited this. By the 1880's, he was semi-retired and did not attempt to gain the notoriety as he used to. Being a suspect in the Ripper murders would not have improved his business, since he was basically retired.

The problem with many ripperologists is they have not taken the time to look deeper.

The problem with many ripperologists is that they have invested too much time in a suspect, have become obsessed with the guilt of a suspect, and have prejudged based upon emotional feelings stemming from an archaic value system. Only people not invested can see clearly because they may be objective. This is why the Cross, Tumblety, and Hutchinson threads become clogged with emotion. You suspect people need to get out and clear your heads once in a while and do your utmost to prove yourselves wrong instead of always wanting to be annoyingly right. It's what Jesus would have done.

Cheers,

Mike

[mklhawley]

I´ll keep it short and sweet, Mike: Anybody who thinks that Tumblety did not like his notoriety have woefully misunderstood what he was about.

He may well have disliked any negative results owing to that notoriety - but that is not the same thing.

Slight misunderstanding of what I was getting at. I can guarentee you have not spent the time in Tumblety's life as I have. You need to look closer at WHEN he attemted to gain notoriety. It was primarily because of business, and he was brilliant at breaking into the market of a location and used the newspapers with the assistance of his Liberace-style entrances into the city. We know of his shady side by when he was arrested. He always dressed down, but kept his wealth (diamonds and gold) in his pocket just in case he was arrested. As you know, in the Victorian Era, the upper crust was treated differently, and he exploited this. By the 1880's, he was semi-retired and did not attempt to gain the notoriety as he used to. Being a suspect in the Ripper murders would not have improved his business, since he was basically retired.

The problem with many ripperologists is they have not taken the time to look deeper.

Now, explain to me how you went from Lechmere being a non-starter to being a suspect you like. Please?

Nope.

[Fisherman]

I´ll keep it short and sweet, Mike: Anybody who thinks that Tumblety did not like his notoriety have woefully misunderstood what he was about.

He may well have disliked any negative results owing to that notoriety - but that is not the same thing.

Now, explain to me how you went from Lechmere being a non-starter to being a suspect you like. Please?

Fisherman

[mklhawley]

You need to weigh in how papers work to begin with - they pounce on things that sell them. And saying that Tumblety was a fierce womanhater sells a lot better than writing about how he chit-chatted with his landladies and gave his money away to women when he died.

Actually, I have weighed into how papers work. I refer you to my article on Yellow Journalism. When you do read it, you'll realize you're incorrect.

You also need to weigh in how a man like Tumblety works; I see a man that would do anything to get into the papers, a flamboyant bragger and a con artist. Just the type of man that would happily speak of how fierce he was. He would have loved the Ripper angle, I´m sure.

The problem is, you are not weighing in on the how Tumblety works. Tumblety had two personas, his public one and his private one. You're mixing up the two:

The Times (Philadelphia, PA) December 8, 1888.
WHERE IS TUMBLETY.
He is Believed to be in Cincinnati En Route to Chicago.
CHICACO, December 7. – Dr. Tumblety, who was gaining an unenviable notoriety by reason of a fancied connection with the Whitechapel murders, was expected to arrive in Chicago this morning on the Pennsylvania limited… It is not improbable that if Tumblety is not already in Chicago he will soon drift around here, as he is known to have friends in this city with whom he could stay until the present excitement in connection with his name blows over.

You see, Tumblety did not enjoy this notoriety, since it was a product of his private life.

It´s in no way any open and shut case in favour of him being a misogynist, I´m afraid. My own feeling is that he was a homosexual who said something derogatory about women once and found out that people were fascinated by it and then the press took the bait. After that, it rolled on and all the while he was totally amicable with lots of women in private. I would not be surprised if he spoke very derogatory about Mrs McNamara when in company with fellow homosexuals and/or men! That´s MY Tumblety, at least.

But, don't you see; you made this conclusion even before you saw evidence to the contrary. It is certainly a case of confirmation bias. You have a reason to reject it.

Life is many times more complex than what we are given to believe when reading newspapers, Mike. And when the self same papers are dealing with braggards like Tumblety, they thrive on one another, they form a sort of symbiosis that both parts take advantage of. It´s not as if Madonna, Miley Cyrus, Rihanna and Beyonce are all nymphomaniacs - sadly. They have a deal with the papers that we will never find in writing. And Tumblety would have had the same, I think.

Oh, a life lesson? A couple of problems here. First, you're painting a picture of newspapers with a broad brushstroke about the credibility of newspapers. One example, because of the fierce competition for New York readers, the five big daily NY papers made it known when a competitor put out bad news. I have examples. Also, US newspapers matched British papers.

Second problem. The power of this evidence is in its corroboration. US newspapers corroborated British newspapers, corroborated Chief Inspector Littlechild's statement, which was corroborated by Tumblety's words to Hall Caine.

You didn't answer something. When Littlechild mentioned his feelings towards women were bitter to the extreme; if he was referring to homosexuality, was he saying (in modern terms), "Tumblety wasn't gay, he was really, really gay." That just makes no sense.

[Fisherman]

I´m afraid you are still wrong, Mike. At least to my mind. Whether it is 80-20 or 70-30 in favour of clippings saying that Tumblety was a womanhater is of very little interest. None at all, actually.

You need to weigh in how papers work to begin with - they pounce on things that sell them. And saying that Tumblety was a fierce womanhater sells a lot better than writing about how he chit-chatted with his landladies and gave his money away to women when he died.

You also need to weigh in how a man like Tumblety works; I see a man that would do anything to get into the papers, a flamboyant bragger and a con artist. Just the type of man that would happily speak of how fierce he was. He would have loved the Ripper angle, I´m sure.

It´s in no way any open and shut case in favour of him being a misogynist, I´m afraid. My own feeling is that he was a homosexual who said something derogatory about women once and found out that people were fascinated by it and then the press took the bait. After that, it rolled on and all the while he was totally amicable with lots of women in private. I would not be surprised if he spoke very derogatory about Mrs McNamara when in company with fellow homosexuals and/or men! That´s MY Tumblety, at least.

Life is many times more complex than what we are given to believe when reading newspapers, Mike. And when the self same papers are dealing with braggards like Tumblety, they thrive on one another, they form a sort of symbiosis that both parts take advantage of. It´s not as if Madonna, Miley Cyrus, Rihanna and Beyonce are all nymphomaniacs - sadly. They have a deal with the papers that we will never find in writing. And Tumblety would have had the same, I think.

All the best,
Fisherman

[mklhawley]

Hey, but I'm not done showing evidence for Tumblety's unusual hatred of women!

The Inter Ocean (Chicago, Illinois) December 4, 1888
…According to the detectives he arrived yesterday on the French steamship La Bretagne from Havre, and although there were a dozen or…

Inspector Byrnes said to-day that, although there was no defined charge on which he could arrest the Doctor, he would still keep an eye on him. After his arrest in London he was released on the Whitechapel charge for lack of evidence, but rearrested and held for trial for another offense. He was placed under $1,500 bail, and to [two] gentlemen went on his bond. After his release he evaded the London police and fled to Havre…

…canal boats. A few years after reaching manhood, he evinced a great dislike for women, and constantly spoke of the gentler sex as a curse to the land. He was always an easy liver, and at all times appeared to have plenty of money, though nobody could learn how or where he acquired it. His title of “Doctor” is also in a cloud and the testimonials which he frequently exhibited are said to be bogus…


Notice how the 'curse to the land' cannot be construed as the reporter meaning homosexual? Also, this certainly sounds like bitter to the extreme.

Oh, and notice how this article corroborates Tumblety first being arrested (without a warrent) 'on suspicion'. But that's another thread.

Sincerely,
Mike

[mklhawley]

Now, he could have associated with women and still hated them. That would not be impossible.
He could even have been on seemingly good footing with woem and STILL hated them, secretely, so to speak. That works too as a hypothesis.

Total agreement.

What I find the thread has proven is that there is material - in abundance - stating that Tumblety disliked women.

But there is also material - in abundance - that speaks another language; the tenderness of his landlady commenting on him, the money he left for women when he died.

All in all, we have an unproven case

Here's the weakness in your argument. There is not evidence 'in abundance' that speaks to the contrary. I actually take all of the evidence into account, including what you deem as contradictory to Tumblety hating women. You on the otherhand, must ignore evidence you deem contradictory. See the difference? Your other issue is not part of this thread.

[Fisherman]

"Tumblety did not avoid women at all cost"

...and what does that have to do with anything? It's quite obvious that if Tumblety was going to be successful at his Indian Herb Doctor business, he was going to have to deal with women. You've ignored the intention of the author of this statement. Tumblety had an unusual hatred of women.

You have an interesting way of debating, Mike. You constantly tell me what I am doing and thinking.

I prefer to take care of that part myself.

I´ve ignored nothing. I have followed up on my post, commenting upon two sentences and stating that one of them must be false. That post DID say that Tumblety avoided contact with women at all costs. It was therefore not a god post to put our faith in, since we could easily see that this was a complete exaggeration.

When a post completely exaggerates one element, it is reasonable if doubt clings to the rest of the unproven elements of the post. And here, that element was the statement that Tumblety hated all women.

Now, he could have associated with women and still hated them. That would not be impossible.
He could even have been on seemingly good footing with woem and STILL hated them, secretely, so to speak. That works too as a hypothesis.

What I find the thread has proven is that there is material - in abundance - stating that Tumblety disliked women.

But there is also material - in abundance - that speaks another language; the tenderness of his landlady commenting on him, the money he left for women when he died.

All in all, we have an unproven case, as far as I can tell. And I think that this - but it is just my own take - could be due to Tumblety being a very colourful man, who did not mind spicing up a story.

Take that as you want. But don´t tell me I am biased, a crony etcetera, etcetera. Address the points made instead. And why not address my question why Charles Lechmere was a non-starter? And the next question would be how you couple that stance of your with, and I quote "Actually as suspects go, I like Lechmere"...???

I don´t want to repeat myself, but once again I find there are two rather unconcilable statements being bandied about. By you, both of them.

The best,
Fisherman