Proof of Tumblety's Misogyny

[Fisherman]

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.

My argument is totally valid, since I have not assessed for one second the truthfulness of the two sentences. Nor have I looked for the sources. I am therefore a hundred per cent unbiased as regards both of them.
They may been fetched from valid sources or not, but that is of no consequence whatsoever. It still stands that they are mutually contradictory and canīt both be true.

The soundness of the argument is another question that will be affected by any lack of veracity coupled to the sources, thatīs true. But that is not my baby - those who present the sentences must be the ones who vouch for them too.

The best,
Fisherman

[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

I see what you are saying. But it is not the same thing, really; the sentences you present are not absolutes in the same fashion as the ones I picked. Those two are unreconcileable.
Of course, many of the things people say should be taken with a grain of salt.
Tumblety could have been a passionate womanhater who tolerated some women for some reasons, perhaps practical ones.
He could also have been a man that actually did not mind women as such, but chose to express such views just the same, perhaps since he was a homosexual.
He could have disliked some categories of women very much, but tolerated or even liked others.
Itīs anybodys guess.
But he could not have avoided all association with all women and at the same time enjoyed close relationships with some. That is impossible, simple as that.

Thanks for posting, anyway!

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Biased nonsense Fisherman.
You just moved the goalposts.
I could prove you wrong but I promised someone I wouldn't tell a soul.
Now lets get this thread back on topic - which isn't about Tumblety being a misogynist.

Barrister
I will look out he will details - and the landlady stuff as well when I next get a chance.

Mayerllng
I don't know much about the 'Brides in the Bath' case you mentioned. But wasn't the motive at least partly financial? With Tumblety extreme misogyny is suggested as the motive (or not apparently) with anger at women for being imposters as another motive (but one that is surely closely related to misogyny). We are trying to establish whether this can be justified by looking at Tumblety - objectively hopefully, and without bias.

[mklhawley]

Biased nonsense Fisherman.
You just moved the goalposts.
I could prove you wrong but I promised someone I wouldn't tell a soul.
Now lets get this thread back on topic - which isn't about Tumblety being a misogynist.

Barrister
I will look out he will details - and the landlady stuff as well when I next get a chance.

Mayerllng
I don't know much about the 'Brides in the Bath' case you mentioned. But wasn't the motive at least partly financial? With Tumblety extreme misogyny is suggested as the motive (or not apparently) with anger at women for being imposters as another motive (but one that is surely closely related to misogyny). We are trying to establish whether this can be justified by looking at Tumblety - objectively hopefully, and without bias.

Lechmere, sounds like you're upset that I discovered your hidden agenda. It's not my fault that Lechmere is a nonstarter as a suspect, except of course for you and Fisherman.

[auspirograph]

Lechmere, sounds like you're upset that I discovered your hidden agenda. It's not my fault that Lechmere is a nonstarter as a suspect, except of course for you and Fisherman.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...nal-Green.html

[mklhawley]

Ah ha! Cogidubus called you Ed on the other thread! Now it really makes sense.

Mike

[Fisherman]

Lechmere, sounds like you're upset that I discovered your hidden agenda. It's not my fault that Lechmere is a nonstarter as a suspect, except of course for you and Fisherman.

Once again you are wawering. Either Lechmere IS a non-starter or he is not. Both canīt be true, you see.

It is a pretty parallel to the two sentences I chose earlier, therefore. And just like that time, it still lies on the ones who say things like these to put them beyond reproach.

Putting it otherwise, it lies on you to prove your point that Charles Lechmere is a non-starter as a Ripper suspect.

As for the other issue, it was easy enough to find that Tumbletyīs landlady, Mrs McNamara, was quoted in the papers as saying that Tumblety was a perfect gentleman. That tells us that the sentence involving the claim that Tumblety would not associate with women at all since he hated them all, was a false sentence. Tumblety did associate with women, and seemingly in a charitable manner too.

So that score is settled by now, implications included.

The next score is the one about Lechmere being a non-starter. I put it to you that you need to produce proof for that claim, preferably on one of the Lechmere threads. Once youīve done that, weīll all know why a man found alone by the freshly killed victim of a woman, a man that seemingly lied his way past the police, a man that did not give his true name to the police, a man whose working trail seemingly took him past or close to the murder sites at the relevant murder hours in five cases and a man who had close connections and good reasons to visit the area where the reamining two victims of 1888 were killed, would be a non-starter.

Not that the discussion on this thread has anything at all to do about Lechmere, but it would seem that having Tumblety scrutinized and criticized as a candidate has produced an urge for you to claim that our candidate is not better. Itīs a type of reaction that is not uncommon, but the problem connected to it this time is that you are very wrong. Point by point, Lechmere is a far better candidate than Tumblety, provided that we can free ourselves of the misconception that the 1888 police was always right to suspect various people of being the Ripper.
So if Lechmere is a "non-starter", I fail to see what that makes Tumblety.

The other way of doing this is to live and let live. Tumblety was a police suspect. It is reasonable to suggest that there was something in his background and/or actions that sparked the interest on Littlechildīs behalf. Once we accept that we have no specific evidence whatsoever of any involvment in the Whitechapel killings on Tumbletyīs behalf, it is therefore still fair enough to keep him under surveillance and dig up as much as we can about him.
That, however, cannot be done with credibility by somebody who takes it upon him to call a suspect like Lechmere a non-starter as long as this claim is not built under by some sort of robust confirmation. Especially not if that somebody has made it his business to shout "bias!" in every other post. If no confirmation can be produced that Charles Lechmere is a non-starter, then a huge bias against his candidature is all that has been produced.

So which is it?

Is it "Ha-ha, people have not accepted that Lechmere was the killer, stupid, stupid you!"

Or can you substantiate what you are saying? On another thread of your choice, please. Then we can use this one to analyze what relationship Tumblety had to women - in an unbiased manner, hopefully.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

I was wondering what my hidden agenda was - now I know!
I guess I gave it away with my name - oops.
You need to be a latter day Sherlock Holmes to find me out and locate press coverage from my biased yet well receieved theory.
Anyway back to Tumblety - can his proponents make a case that he was a misogynist? Seems not!

[Lechmere]

The Wheeling Register (West Virginia) 8th December 1888
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.

[Lechmere]

Will 1 - note the number of female beneficiaries:

* $10,000 to his sister Mrs. Jane Hayes of Vallejo, California.
* $10,000 to his niece Mrs. Thomas Brady of Liverpool, England.
* $10,000 to Mrs. Mary Fitzsimmons of Plymouth Avenue, Rochester.
* $10,000 to Cardinal Gibbons of Baltimore.
* $10,000 to John Ireland, Archbishop of St. Paul, Minnesota.
* $5,000 to his niece Mrs. Barrett of Gibbs Street, Rochester.
* $5,000 to his niece Mrs. Jane Moore of Gibbs Street, Rochester.
* $5,000 to his former coachman Mark A. Blackburn.

[Lechmere]

Will 2
Mr. Joseph R. Kemp was in possession of a will that Tumblety was said to have written in Baltimore on Oct 3, 1901. In it, he left all of his jewelry and $1,000 to the Home for Fallen Women. This will was later disregarded by the Probate Court.

[Lechmere]

From The Daily Picayune - New Orleans, Monday 10th December 10 1888
NEW YORK, 4th December 1888
We have in our midst once more here in New York that unique personage known as Dr. Tumblety. The man is not a criminal in the ordinary sense, but the suspicion that he is one in some extraordinary sense makes him interesting. He is big, tall and brawny. His heavy moustache exudes black hair dye. He is on the sunny side of 60 and by no means unprepossessing. "Bless you," says Mrs. McNamara, "he wouldn't hurt a fly. He is a perfect gentleman and he always pays me punctual."
Mrs. McNamara keeps a boarding-house at No. 79 East Tenth street and she is a landlady of irrefragable respectability and irreproachable veracity. Tumblety has boarded with her off and on for years. That is why it came to be known he was in town again.

[mklhawley]

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.

[Brenda]

.

You can be polite to people even if you have personal disdain for them. I would imagine it would be in Tumblety's best interests to have been on his best behavior with his landlady, for obvious reasons.

I notice that the ladies listed in his will, with the exception of one, are his relations. I am throwing this theory out there....perhaps Tumblety was okay with the women that he felt no sexual pressure (real or perceived) from.

[Lechmere]

Mike
There is no secret who I am.
My dastardly agenda is to discuss the pros and cons of various suspects. I find it intetesting. I like to see if other suspects can stand up to searching questions.
When I discuss my favoured suspect I don't care what other theory a critic may have. I answer their points with respect to my suspect.
I have also engaged in the rough and tumble of debate over Hutchinson, Fleming, Kosminski, Druitt, Le Grand and even Maybrick so don't run away with the idea I am persecuting you.
I discuss the Tumblety theory critically and will continue to do so even if it makes you uncomfortable to the extent that you have to resort to rudeness and personal insults rather than engage in good natured debate.
I appreciate that when you are an enthusiast and put a lot of work
into a particular field it can be unsettling for your work to he subjected to rigorous criticism rather than just getting pats on the back.
But that's life I'm afraid.
If you have confidence in your theory then engage in debate and answer the points raised rather than resorting to personal remarks.
Falling back on the tired line that a critic is biased or should be debarred from commenting because he or she has their own theory is the last resort of the failure.
Be bigger than that.