Proof of Tumblety's Misogyny

[mklhawley]

Ed, I have absolutely no issues with you promoting Lechmere, or anyone promoting a suspect, AND scrutinizing others, as long as discovery of truth is the goal. I gave you clear evidence and all you've done is use fallacy after fallacy. It resonated with me because of my expertise in the evolution/creation controversy, so I wrote a book about it. Sure, I understand confirmation bias, where anyone, even scientists, emphasize some evidence and subconsciously de-emphasize contrary evidence, but a vindictive agenda is entirely different.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman! I wondered why you jumped into this conversation so quickly once I figured out what...Ed was doing. You're a crony of his.

Now, if it's true that Lechmere is Ed Stow, this is entirely different than my bias against his. He has a vindictive agenda against someone. So, why would Ed want to even research Tumblety when everyone in the world knows his baby is Mr. Cross? I actually realized 'Lechmere' was trolling on the first thread he invaded because of how he treated overwhelming evidence that Tumblety could not have been the source for the US articles, he kept it up.

Then! Ed attempted to sabotage Siobhan's brilliant find. Lastly, I've given volumes of corroborating evidence to show Tumblety was a woman hater and he resorts to rhetoric, supported by his cronies.

Now, it looks like Ed is trying to avoid my discovery of his vindictive agenda. Fisherman, you're certainly fighting for him and you were certainly reading this thread with your immediate response. Hmmmm.

If you can find no other way out of this than to mumble about my being "a crony" and speak of bias and vindictiveness, then that is your choice.
I was rather hoping that I would be entitled to a view of my own, just as I was hoping that you would produce some sort of substantiation for your statement that Charles Lechmre is a non-starter for the RipperŽs role.

So thereŽs two ways of doing it. The choice is yours.

The best,
Fisherman

[mklhawley]

So thereŽs two ways of doing it. The choice is yours.

Fisherman, you're using a fallacy, as well! Young earth creationists use the 'it's either this or it's that' ploy. There's a dozen ways of doing it. Actually as suspects go, I like Lechmere, but I also like Druitt and Le Grand. I just don't like alterior motives. But, this thread should be about Tumblety and Misogyny. I've given volumes of separate and distinct corroborating pieces of evidence that when Littlechild described Tumblety's feelings towards women, 'remarkable and bitter', it meant his hatred not his homosexuality. If you honestly believe he meant homosexual, then you think Littlechild meant, "Tumblety was not only gay, he was really, really gay." That makes no sense.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman, you're using a fallacy, as well! Young earth creationists use the 'it's either this or it's that' ploy. There's a dozen ways of doing it. Actually as suspects go, I like Lechmere, but I also like Druitt and Le Grand. I just don't like alterior motives. But, this thread should be about Tumblety and Misogyny. I've given volumes of separate and distinct corroborating pieces of evidence that when Littlechild described Tumblety's feelings towards women, 'remarkable and bitter', it meant his hatred not his homosexuality. If you honestly believe he meant homosexual, then you think Littlechild meant, "Tumblety was not only gay, he was really, really gay." That makes no sense.

I have not entered the particular debate you speak of. I merely pointed out that there were two sentences on the thread that could not both be correct. And then I found out that this was so. Tumblety did not avoid women at all cost.

The two (yes, two) choices I spoke of were either you tell me what makes Charles Lechmere a non-starter or you donŽt. There will not be a dozen answers to that particular equation.

Not that IŽm holding my breath. Fallacy, was it?

Fisherman

[mklhawley]

"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.

[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.

IŽve 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 donŽt 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 donŽt 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

[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.

[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

[Fisherman]

IŽm 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, IŽm sure.

ItŽs in no way any open and shut case in favour of him being a misogynist, IŽm 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! ThatŽs 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. ItŽs 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]

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, IŽm 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.

ItŽs in no way any open and shut case in favour of him being a misogynist, IŽm 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! ThatŽs 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. ItŽs 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]

IŽll 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]

IŽll 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.

[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]

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

[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.