Proof of Tumblety's Misogyny

[Lechmere]

Mike
I stated earlier:
To make a convincing case that Tumblety was an extreme misogynist (besides being a homosexual) and that this his hatred of women was of such a strong character that he could have engaged in a killing spree… then we will need some concrete examples from his well recorded life.

To which you replied
Your premise that if Tumblety was JTR, it was because of his hatred of women, is wrong. Using this incorrect premise you say, "since he really didn't hate women, he's not JTR." You're barking up the wrong tree. Yes, he absolutely hated women, but if he was JTR, that's not the primary reason for murdering them. Your incorrect premise promotes your bias.

I based my assumption that Tumblety’s woman hating was put forward as a motivation for him being the murderer, on what you said in your Whitechapel Society article!
You approvingly quoted the FBI list of motives for serial killers and specifically singled out ‘ideology’ (in Tumblety’s case misogyny) and ‘anger’ (at women as ‘imposters’).
The purpose of the article was to ‘prove’ that Tumblety met these criteria.
In your conclusion you stated:
‘Note that these are two of the motivations behind serial killings identified by the FBI, and in Tumbelty’s case, both of these motivations are directed towards the exact type of person Jack the Ripper mutilated.’

How did I make an incorrect premise?

Regarding Durham, as you failed to mention him in your article and as I know that his reliability as an unbiased source in Tumblety has been brought into question, I assumed these two factors might somehow be connected. But clearly this was a guess on my part – which is why I said it was a guess. If I guess I always try to highlight the fact that it is a guess rather than a spurious fact.

[Lechmere]

Mike
I can see that there is a trail of evidence around that can assembled to support the hypothesis that Tumblety was an extreme misogynist.
However if we detach this aspect from the overall Tumblety case and just focus on the accusation:’
‘Can we say whether or not Tumblety was an extreme misogynist’.
I would suggest that the answer is that it is unproven.
There is the obvious complication that he was a homosexual and they were regarded by society as being woman haters.

There is the extra problem that he was a rich and older homosexual who liked to engage the services of younger men and inveigle these naive youngsters into his world. He was predatory. His prey were these callow youths. One of his regular aims was to denigrate womanhood and particularly the most sexually available females – prostitutes, fallen women etc – in the eyes of his prey. His obvious aim was to turn them off women and onto himself! This is an age old tactic for men such as Tumblety.
Nearly every single account from people who knew Tumblety where such attitudes are expressed are along those lines (Caine, McGarry, Lyons and probably Maguire) – apart possibly from Durham, his enemy.
It doesn’t have any real bearing on determining his genuine attitude towards women.

You are on better ground with the Liverpool Leader story from 1875 – which I mentioned earlier as you used it in evidence in your April 2013 Whitechapel Society Journal article.
In the report Tumblety throws his weight around to eject some disgruntled customers –who happen to be female.
We have other accounts in Tumblety’s life where he tries to throw his weight around with men. Do these signify that he was a man hater?
If he had a regular record of being abusive with women then you might have a point.
Given the nature of Tumblety’s business – were disgruntled customers were an occupational hazard, one isolated report is not very strong evidence.

Selectively quoting from passages where Tumblety writes intemperate things about women ignores the fact that Tumblety was want to turn his pen against men with much more vituperation. He was that kind of a guy. A bit of a bitch.
For example John Chetcuti opened his Whitechapel Society article with one such dreadfully venomous letter – written to Caine about Frederick Richardson, the editor of the Liverpool Leader, in anger at the 1875 newspaper article sited above!
Tumblety regarded the editor as a blackmailer. Indeed Richardson seems to have been in and out of court on accusations of libel.
So how good is that 1875 source?

You sited the January 1889 New York World article where Tumblety denies being a woman hater:

"You are accused of being a woman-hater. What have you to say to that?"
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. It had nothing to do with his relationship with men.

I would suggest that he was merely deflecting the journalist’s question by implying, via a poem, that he had an almost romantic attachment to an aristocratic lady from Torquay. I don’t think much can be read into it.

In summary we have evidence that he tries to prejudice the minds of his male targets against womanhood.
There is one tarnished report of an instance of a violent action against a woman.
If you can uncover a series of similar events you may have a case.
To counter accusations of genuine antipathy to women, we know for a fact that Tumblety had a very close relationship with his landladies and that in one of his wills he left a bequest to fallen women.

[The Good Michael]

St. Louis Republic, January 17, 1889:
LOUISVILLE, Jan. 16. – Mr. James D. Maguire, at present cashier of a restaurant in this city, believes that Dr. Tumblety is really the Whitechapel fiend. Mr. Maguire acted as Tumblety’s valet for a time in St. Louis and knows the man quite well… “Tumblety is not altogether unworthy of consideration in connection with the Whitechapel crimes. He has always been outspoken, if not notorious as a woman-hater. In all that is known of his life in the past 30 years he has never been mixed up with or made himself the companion of females. His antipathy to fallen women has been especially marked…

This actually leads to the December 1888 comments of someone who knew Francis Tumblety beginning over a quarter of a century prior to the murders. This person was Charles Dunham. Because ripperologists have been under the misconception that Charles Dunham was a pathological liar, his commented have been relegated as untrustworthy, thus, we seem to have forgotten what he stated about Francis Tumblety. I had written two articles on Charles Dunham, demonstrating that he was far from being a pathological liar (the job description for a Civil War double agent was convincing deception, but that was only during the Civil War and the presidential assassination fiasco) AND that lying about Tumblety in 1888 would have been out of character for him. If we put Dunham in a new light, note what he stated about Tumblety,

Rochester Democrat and Republican, 3 December 1888,
Special to the New York World.
LONDON, Dec. 1.
…When to my knowledge of the man’s history, his idiosyncrasies, his revolting practices, his antipathy to women, and especially to fallen women.” …

Some one asked why he had not invited some women to his dinner. His face instantly became as black as a thunder cloud. He had a pack of cards in his hand, but he laid them down and said, almost savagely: 'No, Colonel, I don't know any such cattle, and if I did I would, as your friend, sooner give you a dose of quick poison than take you into such danger.' He then broke into a homily on the sin and folly of dissipation, fiercely denounced all woman and especially fallen women.

How interesting this fits Littlechild's comments to a tee.

I don't make this comparison. 'remarkable and bitter' is what Littlechild says with regards to Tumblety's attitude towards women. That is not the same as denunciation and special disdain for fallen women.

Again, I don't think it matters with regards to his being a suspect.

Mike

[Robert]

Test.

[Lechmere]

Fag Break?

[mklhawley]

Mike
I stated earlier:
To make a convincing case that Tumblety was an extreme misogynist (besides being a homosexual) and that this his hatred of women was of such a strong character that he could have engaged in a killing spree… then we will need some concrete examples from his well recorded life.

To which you replied
Your premise that if Tumblety was JTR, it was because of his hatred of women, is wrong. Using this incorrect premise you say, "since he really didn't hate women, he's not JTR." You're barking up the wrong tree. Yes, he absolutely hated women, but if he was JTR, that's not the primary reason for murdering them. Your incorrect premise promotes your bias.

I based my assumption that Tumblety’s woman hating was put forward as a motivation for him being the murderer, on what you said in your Whitechapel Society article!
You approvingly quoted the FBI list of motives for serial killers and specifically singled out ‘ideology’ (in Tumblety’s case misogyny) and ‘anger’ (at women as ‘imposters’).
The purpose of the article was to ‘prove’ that Tumblety met these criteria.
In your conclusion you stated:
‘Note that these are two of the motivations behind serial killings identified by the FBI, and in Tumbelty’s case, both of these motivations are directed towards the exact type of person Jack the Ripper mutilated.’

How did I make an incorrect premise?

Because you have a biased filter as you read my article. You have attempted to separate the multiple motivations. Notice which motivation I focused upon at the end of the article; anger towards a group, and in this case, women and especially fallen women. The evidence clearly shows that Tumblety considered women as decoys, decoying young men away from their intended lovers; old men. My conclusion is based upon evidence. Sorry.

Regarding Durham, as you failed to mention him in your article and as I know that his reliability as an unbiased source in Tumblety has been brought into question, I assumed these two factors might somehow be connected. But clearly this was a guess on my part – which is why I said it was a guess. If I guess I always try to highlight the fact that it is a guess rather than a spurious fact.

Your are clearly dating yourself, since his reliability being brought into question is outdated. You need to read my two Dunham articles. If you have and still believe he's unreliable, lay out your argument. Use the appropriate thread, though.

[Lechmere]

Mike
You are biased in favour of Tumblety's guilt but I address your arguments not your motivation.
Do you want to shift the emphasis away from Tumblety's possible ideological-misogynistic motivation to anger-imposter? If so then so be it.
I have extensively answered that already with respect to how he discussed fallen women with the young men he targeted.
Regarding Durham do you refer to the article about the Union Officer Sullivan (I think that was his name - I'm going from memory)?
Perhaps you could be specific?

[Barrister]

Very useful and helpful. Thanks, Stewart.

[mklhawley]

Mike
I can see that there is a trail of evidence around that can assembled to support the hypothesis that Tumblety was an extreme misogynist.
However if we detach this aspect from the overall Tumblety case and just focus on the accusation:’
‘Can we say whether or not Tumblety was an extreme misogynist’.
I would suggest that the answer is that it is unproven.

The problem is that this is not what the thread is about. It's about if Tumblety is confirmed to be a woman hater. Sorry, the answer is yes.

First of all, let's clarify the young Lyons source. It came from attorney William P. Burr.

Hey there's more corroborating evidence! William Pinkerton: "He was known as a thorough woman-hater and as a man who never associated with or mixed with women of any kind."

Truly, the reason why you reject this evidence is because of confirmation bias.

There is the extra problem that he was a rich and older homosexual who liked to engage the services of younger men and inveigle these naive youngsters into his world. He was predatory. His prey were these callow youths. One of his regular aims was to denigrate womanhood and particularly the most sexually available females – prostitutes, fallen women etc – in the eyes of his prey. His obvious aim was to turn them off women and onto himself! This is an age old tactic for men such as Tumblety.
Nearly every single account from people who knew Tumblety where such attitudes are expressed are along those lines (Caine, McGarry, Lyons and probably Maguire) – apart possibly from Durham, his enemy.
It doesn’t have any real bearing on determining his genuine attitude towards women.

When you say Dunham, his enemy. This is also outdated information, especially when Littlechild and Pinkerton corroborate this. All of them have a real bearing upon determining his genuine attitude towards women. Sorry.

You are on better ground with the Liverpool Leader story from 1875 – which I mentioned earlier as you used it in evidence in your April 2013 Whitechapel Society Journal article.
In the report Tumblety throws his weight around to eject some disgruntled customers –who happen to be female.
We have other accounts in Tumblety’s life where he tries to throw his weight around with men. Do these signify that he was a man hater?
If he had a regular record of being abusive with women then you might have a point.
Given the nature of Tumblety’s business – were disgruntled customers were an occupational hazard, one isolated report is not very strong evidence.

You are exploiting a fallacy used by young earth creationists, suggesting that there's evidence for both sides, as if the evidence conflicts. Who cares if he had issues with males. He should because that's who he generally interacted with. You considering it not very strong evidence has to be weighed against your personal bias.

Selectively quoting from passages where Tumblety writes intemperate things about women ignores the fact that Tumblety was want to turn his pen against men with much more vituperation. He was that kind of a guy. A bit of a bitch.
For example John Chetcuti opened his Whitechapel Society article with one such dreadfully venomous letter – written to Caine about Frederick Richardson, the editor of the Liverpool Leader, in anger at the 1875 newspaper article sited above!
Tumblety regarded the editor as a blackmailer. Indeed Richardson seems to have been in and out of court on accusations of libel.
So how good is that 1875 source?

Quite the red herring argument, since his issue with men who wronged him is irrelevant. It does show, however, Tumblety's narcissism.

In summary we have evidence that he tries to prejudice the minds of his male targets against womanhood.
There is one tarnished report of an instance of a violent action against a woman.
If you can uncover a series of similar events you may have a case.
To counter accusations of genuine antipathy to women, we know for a fact that Tumblety had a very close relationship with his landladies and that in one of his wills he left a bequest to fallen women.

This is another young earth creationist ploy. Move the goal posts.

I keep on talking about Lechmere's anti-Tumblety bias. Could this be correct?
I believe I found Lechmere's hidden agenda that he has against Tumblety, or almost. I thought to myself, why has Lechmere been posting fallaceous arguments on the last three Tumblety threads, but not before? It wouldn't be vindictiveness would it Lechmere?

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=7735

[Barrister]

Now we're talking. Where can I find his wills, especially the last one?

[Fisherman]

A: "... we know for a fact that Tumblety had a very close relationship with his landladies."

B: "He was known as a thorough woman-hater and as a man who never associated with or mixed with women of any kind."

These two sentences cannot both be true. One has to be false.

Yes, I think Lechmere was the killer, but that has no bearing whatsoever on the above: they can not both be true. Either Tumblety never associated or mixed with women of any kind, in which case statement A is false. Or Tumblety did associate with women, in which case statement B is false.

Am I biased for pointing this out? No. Am I vindicitive over something? No. But even if I had been, the same thing would apply - one of the two sentences is false.

The best,
Fisherman

[mklhawley]

[I] A: "... we know for a fact that Tumblety had a very close relationship with his landladies."

Who stated this? ...and why would I consider this accurate? For a logical statement to work, it must be both valid and sound. Your argument is valid, but far from sound. Well, it's not even valid, really.

[miss marple]

All this going round in circles.Just a few thoughts. As a mere woman, I am going on intuition. it appears that Tumblety despised woman, socially and sexually. They were beneath his notice and as such not worthy of attention.
The Whitechapel murders seemed to have been done by an individual who had an intense negative experience with a member of the female sex that led to hatred, possibly a prostitute mother or something.
Tumblety seems to be one of those very macho homosexuals who lived in a man's world and in his contact with woman was professionally effective and privately contemptuous,
Why would he kill women in an elaborate way when he had no interest in them?

That's all I mean. Its just a thought.

Miss Marple

[mklhawley]

All this going round in circles.Just a few thoughts. As a mere woman, I am going on intuition. it appears that Tumblety despised woman, socially and sexually. They were beneath his notice and as such not worthy of attention.
The Whitechapel murders seemed to have been done by an individual who had an intense negative experience with a member of the female sex that led to hatred, possibly a prostitute mother or something.
Tumblety seems to be one of those very macho homosexuals who lived in a man's world and in his contact with woman was professionally effective and privately contemptuous,
Why would he kill women in an elaborate way when he had no interest in them?

That's all I mean. Its just a thought.

Miss Marple

Hi Miss Marple,

He definitely had no sexual interest in them and believed they were the ruination of the world. He also believed they were the cause of his love desires to not want him. The ripper mutilated what made women female, and I see the connection. There is more, but I promised not to discuss it yet. I will mention my first article, Tumblety and the Elixir of Life. That's another possibility based upon evidence.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Mayerling]

A: "... we know for a fact that Tumblety had a very close relationship with his landladies."

B: "He was known as a thorough woman-hater and as a man who never associated with or mixed with women of any kind."

These two sentences cannot both be true. One has to be false.

Yes, I think Lechmere was the killer, but that has no bearing whatsoever on the above: they can not both be true. Either Tumblety never associated or mixed with women of any kind, in which case statement A is false. Or Tumblety did associate with women, in which case statement B is false.

Am I biased for pointing this out? No. Am I vindicitive over something? No. But even if I had been, the same thing would apply - one of the two sentences is false.

The best,
Fisherman

Hi Fisherman,

I'm not disagreeing with your point - the two statements do seem contradictory to such a degree that one must be erroneous. But I recall reading something about the serial killer George Joseph Smith. Smith preyed on spinsters he married and drowned in bathtubs on his honeymoons. He had a female lover who he'd return to after his "business trips", and even once warned her about the dangers of bathtubs. Apparently, for the type of women he preyed on he was quite acceptable (to the cost of the ladies). But other women, possibly with more common sense than his victims, never trusted him. One of them was a landlady who wrote after he left her establishment (after one of the killings), "We'll see him again!" in her diary.

With Smith you can write the following two sentences:

"Smith held a fatal fascination for many women."
"Strong minded women mistrusted Smith."

Both are true, but seemingly difficult to fully believe at first until you have the full details. My guess is that we have less than the full details on Tumblety as opposed to Smith. Maybe he got along with women who ran legitimate businesses because he grudgingly respected them, given his views of women in general. Also, if they are including the managers of boarding houses he stayed in it would have been ridiculous to show anything vicious towards them if he needed lodging.

Jeff