Proof of Tumblety's Misogyny

[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.

[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

[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

[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

[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.

[Lechmere]

My my my – so now its ‘meet me behind the bike sheds and I will whisper in your ear about how nasty Lechmere is’.
This seems to be building into a conspiracy theory with me having a secret agenda to act ‘vindictively’ towards someone.
Get real. This is a discussion on an internet message board about a Jack the Ripper suspect. That’s all.

[Fisherman]

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.

Mike, I really don´t think it a very healthy attitude to imagine different sinister motives behind posts that disagree with you. All this "Now, why does he enter the discussion now?" stuff seems a bit weird to me. And I don´t see how it changes the wording of and the relevance of the criticism involved.
If we can´t do it the ordinary way, I guess you will have to tag your posts with "Open for discussions with XX and YY between the hours 04.00 am - 09.00 pm, posters ZZ and AA and BB disallowed with the exception of discussions concerning Tumblety´s hats during the hour inbetween 05.00-06.00 am."

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

This is the relevant part of the Littlechild letter that deals with Tumblety.

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. Tumblety was arrested at the time of the murders in connection with unnatural offences and charged at Marlborough Street, remanded on bail, jumped his bail, and got away to Boulogne. He shortly left Boulogne and was never heard of afterwards. It was believed he committed suicide but certain it is that from this time the 'Ripper' murders came to an end.

Let’s go through it…

‘amongst the suspects, and to my mind a very likely one, was a Dr. T’
So Littlechild says Tumblety was under suspicion at some point and so far as he, Littlechild, was concerned there were things about Tumblety that made his a good or ‘likely’ suspect.
We know that on 22nd November 1888 Anderson sent two telegrams to law enforcement officers in the United States about Tumblety.

'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.'
The reason why Tumblety came under the notice of the police and the contents of the resulting dossier has been much debated.
To some it suggests that he was involved in political activities – as a Fenian. After all Littlechild was in charge of Special Branch. Yet there isn’t the slightest indication in this letter to back up that claim. There is very little in Tumblety’s life to suggest any serious interest in Irish republicanism on his part, and certainly none in this letter. Littlechild was to complain that he was forever being fed information throwing suspicion on Irishmen just because they were Irishmen.
Littlechild was ignorant as to Tumblety’s fate (as we will see) which implies that the dossier was not one that was kept by Special Branch. Furthermore Tumblety does not appear on the Special Branch ledgers.
It is far more likely that the reason Tumblety came to the attention of the police and filled a large dossier, involved his sexual activities. This is the only aspect of Tumbletys life that Littlechild discusses in the letter.
In the context of Littlechild mentioning the dossier in this letter, it only makes sense for this dossier to concern Tumblety’s sexual activities.

'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.'
This is the passage that causes most interest.
'Sycopathia Sexualis' is undoubtedly a reference to Tumblety being a homosexual - which was then regarded as a form of sexual madness – as described in a book called Psychopathia Sexualis published by Krafft-Ebing in 1886.
The same sentence goes on to say that Tumblety’s feelings towards women were:
Remarkable; and
Bitter in the extreme.
Littlechild says this was a recorded fact.
We have seen many newspaper reports about Tumblety’s alleged views – so it is certainly the case that they were recorded.
But what did Littlechild mean when he said ‘bitter in the extreme’?
Bear in mind this is one sentence. It would be strange to introduce a different factor into a sentence that is not discussed elsewhere and where information before and after the sentence relates to the information contained in the first part of the sentence.
In this instance, the previous sentence discusses the fact that Tumblety was always coming to the attention of the police and had a large dossier – almost certainly due to Tumblety’s homosexual practices.
The following sentence is about Tumblety being arrested for unnatural offences – again his homosexual practices.
The actual sentence under examination starts by mentioning Tumblety’s 'Sycopathia Sexualis' (homosexuality) and then says ‘his feelings toward women were remarkable and bitter in the extreme’.
It is fairly clear that the ‘remarkable and bitter in the extreme’ remarks are an elaboration of the homosexual reference in the first part of the same sentence, and tie into the references to Tumblety’s homosexuality in the sentences that precede and follow this one, rather than Littlechild bringing a new factor into the discussion. Given that homosexuals were regarded as ‘woman haters’ this makes perfect sense.
The alternative is that Littlechild inserted a reference to Tumblety having a literal hatred of women as such into the flow of his argument. I would suggest that this is unlikely to be the case.

'Tumblety was arrested at the time of the murders in connection with unnatural offences and charged at Marlborough Street, remanded on bail, jumped his bail, and got away to Boulogne.'
This is all true – although we have no corroboration that Tumblety fled via Boulogne. It could be a mistake as Tumblety sailed to the US from Le Havre. Littlechild makes no mention of Tumblety being arrested in connection with the murders.
Clearly the unnatural offences where the homosexual-related Gross Indecency charges.

'He shortly left Boulogne and was never heard of afterwards. It was believed he committed suicide but certain it is that from this time the 'Ripper' murders came to an end.'
Clearly Littlechild was not aware what happened to Tumblety after he left Boulogne (as I said he may have got mixed up with Le Havre on that detail).
This strongly implies that Scotland Yard lost interest in Tumblety at that stage – which argues against any claim that Tumblety was regarded as being a dangerous Fenian, and also argues against his being regarded as a Ripper suspect after the initial inquiries made around 22nd November 1888.
It also suggests that Inspector Andrews' visit to Canada soon afterwards was not connected to Tumblety.
It must however be taken into consideration that Littlechild was not directly involved in the Ripper investigation and any information he will have had would have primarily been the result of informal chats with his colleagues at Scotland Yard.

[mklhawley]

“It is fairly clear that the ‘remarkable and bitter in the extreme’ remarks are an elaboration of the homosexual reference… Given that homosexuals were regarded as ‘woman haters’ this makes perfect sense.” Ed/Lechemere


Ed makes this conclusion based upon an incorrect premise, that the Scotland Yard dossier on Tumblety only concerned his sexual activities. His sexual activities certainly were in the dossier. When Scotland Yard didn’t have enough evidence to convict him for the Whitechapel murders, they knew full well his gross indecency activities, and charged him with this in order to get him off the streets. But Ed makes the unusual claim that the large dossier had nothing to do with any other issues, such as the Irish Nationalist issue. Littlechild, though, was head of the division responsible for combating the violent arm of this movement, and the file coming from Special Branch is not a stretch of logic, especially when we do indeed have contemporary evidence of the affirmative. Ed claims that since Littlechild didn’t mention it in the letter, then it did not exist. He loves using ‘absence of evidence is evidence for absence’ convoluted logic. Why would Littlechild mention this when the subject of the letter to Sims was the Ripper murders? How interesting Ed minimalized Littlechild’s comment as ‘good suspect’ and ‘likely suspect’ when he actually said ‘very likely suspect’. How reductionist of you Ed.

But to base an entire conclusion on the premise that nothing in the dossier discussed his bitter hatred of women? You don’t know that for sure, then to hinge an entire argument on an unknown makes your conclusion equally as weak:

Daily Telegraph, December 5, 1888: "It is reported by cable from Europe that a certain person, whose name is known, has sailed from Havre for New York, who is famous for his hatred of women, and who has repeatedly made threats against females of dissolute character."
Now, how was he famous for his hatred of women? Clearly this meant his feelings towards women and not towards men (homosexuality), since the next part of the sentence focused upon this. Hmmm.


"...but his feelings towards women were remarkable and bitter in the extreme, a fact on record."
Ed claims this statement of Littlechild’s is an ‘elaboration of the homosexual reference.’ Sooooo, you’re saying Littlechild is means, ‘Tumblety is not only gay but he’s really, really gay’ How many levels of gay do you have? Now that’s a stretch of logic.


But then there’s corroborating evidence! Additional significance to the corroborating evidence other than confirming Littlechild meant woman hater, is the level of hatred; bitter to the extreme. How coincidental that the corroborating evidence not only demonstrates Tumblety’s hatred of women but his unusual hatred of women; enough to make Scotland Yard concerned enough to have Assistant Commissioner Anderson take time out of his busy schedule and personally contact Chiefs of Police in US cities where Tumblety was known to have lived and worked; doing so at the peak of the murders just after his boss resigned.

Corroborating evidence:

1. Daily Telegraph, December 5, 1888: "It is reported by cable from Europe that a certain person, whose name is known, has sailed from Havre for New York, who is famous for his hatred of women, and who has repeatedly made threats against females of dissolute character."
Famous! This was reported by cable ‘from Europe’, i.e., London.


2. James Maguire, a former valet of Francis Tumblety in 1882, just six years before the murders:

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…

...and I'm sure Maguire knew full well he had to interact with women in order to keep them as his customer, but that's certainly different than socializing with them.


3. As I stated earlier, 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 New York attorney Charles Dunham.

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.
The foremost expert on ‘Colonel’ Dunham is biographer Carman Cumming. His assessment is that Dunham was a double agent in the Civil War, as opposed to an unreliable pathological liar. Case in point; after being incarcerated in the South, he talked his way out, and when he finally made it back to Washington DC, the very first meeting he had was with President Lincoln himself and the Secretary of War. Hardly untrustworthy.


4. “He never failed to warn his correspondent [young Lyons] against lewd women, and in doing it used the most shocking language.” Attorney William Burr (Grey River Argus, Feb 25, 1889)
Clearly a hatred of women.


5. 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. He thought all women were impostors, and he often said that all the trouble in this world was caused by women." (New York World, Dec 5, 1888)
The New York World was owned by Pulitzer, who in 1888 promoted journalistic principles of fairness and accuracy. Biographers Gitlin and Pfaff point out, though, that even as he increased sensationalism, he still held to his journalistic principles of fairness and accuracy as he did with his earlier paper, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch,
“Pulitzer is credited with creating a new style of journalism and with setting standards for fairness and accuracy that have influences newspapers since.”

6. Tumblety’s interview:

"You are accused of being a woman-hater. What have you to say to that?" (New York World reporter interviewing Tumblety, January 1889).
Tumblety's response was not to show he wasn't a lover of men, it was proof that he had a good relationship with women and didn't hate them. Why would the World reporter ask this question if it didn't apply to a possible motive for being the Ripper?


7. The Liverpool Leader, January 9, 1875, reported on the recent appearance of a ‘doctor’ setting up shop within their community, who was advertising miraculous cures of Liverpool citizens, but with some investigative journalism, the paper believed they had exposed a fraud. Their investigation of the doctor, who was none other than Francis Tumblety, apparently revealed not only a misogynist, but a violent misogynist,

There comes to us a tale of a decent woman from the Isle of Man who sought his advice respecting a bad leg. He told her it was due to the immorality of her parents, but would cure it for 3 pounds. This she declined, whereon he [Tumblety] ordered her to get out legs and all or else he would kick her out! Other women young an unmarried, have fled in alarm from his premises, and say his language and conduct suggested danger.
As I stated earlier, this article predates the Ripper murders, so one cannot say the papers were adding suggestive comments to hint at his Ripper guilt. Notice how 'other women' clearly suggests his hatred to the gender and not just one person.


8. The Dracula Secrets: Jack the Ripper and the Darkest Sources of Bram Stoker, Storey reveals twenty new letters written by Tumblety to Caine. One of them gives a clue as to why he had such a hatred of women, especially prostitutes…

"The Chinamen are as nasty as Locust, they devour everything they come across, rats and cats, and all sorts of decomposed vegetable matter, they are a species of the Digger Indian. Grass hopper is a luxury which they partake with delight. This is not all, the Chinese that are now being landed on the Pacific shelf are of the lowest order. In morals and obscenity they are far below those of our most degraded prostitutes. Their women are bought and sold, for the usual purposes and they are used to decoy youths of the most tender age, into these dens, for the purpose of exhibiting their nude and disgusting person to the hitherto innocent youths of the cities."

What was the best way to show how low the 'Chinaman' was? Show that he is lower that what Tumblety considered the worst, prostitutes.


9. 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…


10. “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)
Pinkerton biographers comment on William’s Presbyterian upbringing which may have been the reason why he was so trustworthy and honest, which is the reason why Scotland Yard constantly interacted with him. How coincidental that William was at Scotland Yard just a month prior.


11. “…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)Notice how the chief of police has received information from somewhere that he considered reliable.



So, Ed states that this evidence is ‘dreadfully weak’. Do you think so?



Ed and his cronies claim that they have contradictory evidence equally significant. Is this true?

The landlady: Note that all she could say to prove Tumblety was a good guy was that ‘he always pays me punctual’. Doesn’t sound like he hung out with her. She certainly liked his money. We already knew he lied to her when he told her that the reason why he goes out in the evenings is to… go to the grave of his wife. Wow, she was certainly bamboozled. And to hinge an argument on her?

Tumblety’s wills. The women he left money to were his sisters and nieces. Family! Could it be that he left money to his family is significant evidence ‘woman-hater’ meant homosexual? How about leaving valuables and cash to fallen ladies? Hmmm. It sounds more likely Tumblety was attempting to convince the Almighty to give him a chance. Tumblety was Catholic, so it sounds like penance to me. If one killed fallen ladies, who better to give to?

Ed then uses this article as proof of Tumblety not being a woman hater:
THE WHITECHAPEL FIEND
Is Not Dr. Twomblety - The Story Told by the Doctor's Friend
NEW YORK, December 7. - The Star publishes a lady's story as to the past life of Dr. Twomblety who is suspected of the Whitechapel murders. She is a friend of the Doctor's and says she knows of his whereabouts. She maintained that the Doctor had committed no crime, and it was preposterous to hound him simply because he was suspected of being implicated in the Whitechapel murders.
According to her story the Doctor was living quietly in Charing Cross, doing quite an excellent business with his "pimple eradicator." He was known to be an odd genius, and appeared on the streets clad in old-style garments that characterized him during his stay in this city. When the English detectives had been baffled on every hand, and could not find any one in answer the description of "Jack the Ripper," they finally swooped down on quack surgeons and cranks in every walk of life. It was in one of these general hauls that Dr. Twomblety was arrested, but he was not held by the authorities, for he easily proved that he was not a surgeon. His arrest and the unenviable fame occasioned thereby forced the Doctor to leave the country.

First, if anyone believed that British newspapers never reported on Tumblety, well, here’s an example. Sorry Trevor.

So, Ed argues that we must believe her, but if so Ed, we must believe everything. Why are you cherry picking? I thought you believed Tumblety was only arrested for gross indecency? She knew darn well he was FIRST arrested for the Whitechapel murders. Sooo, do we believe her or not? “His arrest and the unenviable fame occasioned thereby forced the Doctor to leave the country.” Sounds to me like Tumblety fed her a load of crap. Do we really know what his relationship was with her? Keep in mind, Tumblety was only semi-retired and he still had a clientele which included wealthy women. Wouldn’t you want these people to believe you’re their best buddy to keep the money rolling in? And this is evidence ‘woman hater’ meant he was a homosexual?

Is Ed and his cronies correct that this evidence negates the evidence to the affirmative?

Sincerely,

Mike

[Lechmere]

Mike
Littlechild’s letter to Sims, where it deals with Tumblety only discusses aspects to do with his homosexuality. You have no reason whatsoever to think that Littlechild regarded Tumbelty as a Fenian or any sort of Home Ruler. There are no grounds for thinking Littlechild thought that. None what so ever.
There is precious little that can be drawn from Tumblety’s well documented life that can be taken to show that Tumblety had any sort of serious attachment to Fenianism or Home Rule – as might be expected with someone of his ilk he occasionally made vainglorious shows of his Irishness – when it suited him.
On what basis can you say that the dossier Littlechild referred to contained anything other than matters relating to Tumblety’s sexual activities? Nothing whatsoever that’s what!
Littlechild mentioned the dossier in the context of talking about Tumblety’s sexual misdeeds – as Littlechild saw them.
I am basing by premise on actual evidence.
You are basing yours on nothing. Absolutely nothing.
Except that Littlechild was in Special Branch.
But Littlechild doesn’t claim ownership of the file and he demonstrates ignorance of Tumblety’s fate – which is unlikely if he ‘owned’ the file.
Can you not see that?

Your oft repeated line:
Sooooo, you’re saying Littlechild is means, ‘Tumblety is not only gay but he’s really, really gay’
really has no bearing on anything.
It is common place for people to repeat for emphasis.
Also clearly Littlechild was setting out for Sims’ benefit the reasons why Tumblety could be regarded as a very likely suspect.
The fallacy that homosexuals hated women – or had feelings against women that were bitter in the extreme if you will - is clearly one reason why homosexuals per se were propelled high up the suspect list.
That quite simply is why Littlechild will have momentarily dwelt on this aspect.
That doesn’t take too much working out.

You claim:
‘When Scotland Yard didn’t have enough evidence to convict him for the Whitechapel murders, they knew full well his gross indecency activities, and charged him with this in order to get him off the streets.’

Tumblety was first charged with Gross Indecency on 7th December.
If the charge was a subterfuge to get Tumblety off the streets why didn’t they get him in front of a magistrate in double quick time and have him remanded?
Do you think the Met were total incompetent fools?
Why did they release him to let him kill again two days later? (If he was released that is).
Didn’t they at least keep him under observation?
Why didn’t the police vigorously oppose bail when Tumblety presented himself (after killing Kelly?) on 14th December, to be held on remand for two days and then released on bail?
Another example of incompetence?
Straight after bungling and letting him free to kill Kelly?
And then after bungling and allowing Tumblety back on the streets the Met bungled for the third time in quick succession and allowed Tumblety – their no 1 Ripper suspect - to escape to France!
That is your case.

Now let’s deal with your Daily Telegraph story of 5th December. Before you get too excited about newspaper stories you should spare a thought for where they came from - who told them what.
Care to hazard a guess for where the Telegraph got its info from?

Then you assemble those old sources – tales from young lads that Tumblety was hitting on and telling them nasty things about women to assist him in his strategy of talking them into his boudoir.
Caine, McGarry, Maguire, Lyons.

You seem to still regard the New York World as a beacon of journalistic truth. Do you care to comment on that article I quoted about Andrews’ visit to Canada from 22nd December 1888?

You have no idea whether Pinkerton was referring to Tumblety as a ‘thorough woman-hater’ with respect to the then more common usage of the term (meaning he was a homosexual) or in its more modern literal sense. Pinkerton incidentally obviously didn’t know of Mrs Macnamara!
The same goes for the remark by Crowley – ‘a man who had no liking for women.’
None of this is inconsistent with Tumblety ‘merely’ being a homosexual.

Should I have to be informing you that the Star referred to was the New York Star- not its London namesake?
Clearly Tumblety sent this woman (possibly Mrs Macnamara) out to tell her tale – to the New York Star I will emphasise again in case you get confused.
Why did this landlady repeat the nonsense about Tumblety getting arrested on suspicion of being the Whitechapel murderer?
Because Tumblety wanted people to fixate on him being arrested for the Ripper crimes and not on the reality which was that he had been arrested for Gross Indecency.

That, Mike, lies behind all the mysterious leaks of information to the US press and the blow back across the Atlantic to the British Press such as the Telegraph. It also provoked Anderson into sending his telegrams and ironically made Tumblety – very briefly – a genuine suspect.

All you have really done is pull together the different articles that prove not very much.
You can find instances of people such as Pinkerton – or Littlechild for that matter – referring to Tumblety in terms which to the modern ear sound like he must have been a literal woman hater – but in the context of the time did not necessarily mean anything of the sort.

You have quotes from the young fellows he preyed on – making it clear that he tried to fill their impressionable heads with propaganda that would turn them off sexually available women and into his own seedy clutches. This cannot be taken as a true indicator of Tumblety’s real feelings towards such women.

We have the Liverpool incident of 1875 in which he was rude to a disgruntled female customer – according to a newspaper editor who was known for playing fast and loose with the truth.
But Tumblety had no track record for behaving in that manner despite the dubious nature of his business which must have led him into many a scrape with disgruntled customers.

Which leaves Durham who you think is now to be regarded– like the New York World – a beacon for truth. Didn’t you say you had done two articles that had proved this?

[mklhawley]

Oh, there are weak arguments throughout your post Ed. I'm going to enjoy ripping it apart, but I won't be at my computer until Monday.

While you're waiting, can anyone see how Tumblety relates to the following thread? If you do, you're getting close to Ed's real agenda, which is clearly not truth:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?p=276690

[Lechmere]

Mike
Well I’ve read your articles about Durham in the New Independent Review ‘Charles Durham: For the Better Good’, in which you attempt to portray Durham as a selfless seeker for the truth so far as Tumblety is concerned, and ‘Charles A. Durham: Tumblety’s Annatomical Collection Reconsidered’.
I am going to have to guess there were the two articles you have been going on about.
You propose that Durham tricked Tumblety into giving his January 1889 interview to the New York World on the basis that he would incriminate himself – but of course Tumblety failed to incriminate himself
While it might technically be true that Durham was not a ‘pathological liar’, it is clear that he is not a reliable witness. As you concede Durham mixed his lies with truth, the trouble is how are we to discern which is which?
With respect to Tumblety’s alleged anatomical museum, with one breath you suggest that if he had such a thing then it would greatly enhance his credibility as a Ripper suspect, and on the other make the case that possessing such a private collection was almost a prerequisite for anyone aspiring to be taken seriously as a doctor. While Tumblety wasn’t a proper doctor, he certainly aspired to be taken seriously as one. Indeed you state that proper doctors even advertised their anatomical collections to differentiate themselves from quack doctors. So even if he had possessed such a collection it wouldn’t really tell us much about Tumblety as a suspect.

[mklhawley]

Of course you reject it, but it's pretty obvious why. Just refer to my last post

[Lechmere]

Mike
Ah - the great ‘reveal’.
I’d forgotten about that Lechmere thread – I have been intending to add to it – particularly over Charles Lechmere’s timings, but keep getting distracted.
Your attempted detective work ‘proving’ my supposed ‘vindictiveness’ is a bit off target I’m afraid.
The cause and effect was roughly as follows:

I was discussing Tumblety on the jtr forums back in September with Jonathan Hainsworth (with whom I always have good natured debates, usually over Druitt. He doesn’t get all ratty when challenged and once or twice he has caught me out making invalid points) on this thread:

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=19497&page=2

This provoked Stewart Evans to intervene, quite unexpectedly from my point of view as I had the impression he didn’t like discussing suspects and I had also seen him often commenting that he was disillusioned with appearing on the boards etc.
Anyway soon afterwards Stewart Evans reopened a thread where he posted various criticisms of the Lechmere theory. From various remarks he made it was evident that this was out of some sort of revenge or counter stroke to my having the effrontery to criticise Tumblety.

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=7462&page=9

As that was a thread Mr Lucky had set up to discuss his slant on the Lechmere theory I took it upon myself to transfer Stewart Evans’ critique to a new thread – then one you have highlighted.
Far from being annoyed at Stewart Evans for raising these issues I welcomed it as clearly he is someone with a great deal of knowledge of the case and answering his critique is more challenging and actually rewarding than from other posters – although I hope I treat everyone who criticises my opinions with due respect.

Not everyone gets all precious, irritated and indeed vindictive when their personal Ripper theory is held up to scrutiny.

And I would guess that Stewart Evans is big enough not to require you to hold his hand.

[mklhawley]

Well, from the looks of it with you reading my articles, I'm your next target, just because I discovered you hidden agenda. I can't believe I'm that significant. I actually feel good about it.