Proof of Tumblety's Misogyny

[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]

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.

[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.

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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]

[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.

[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

[Barrister]

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

[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]

Very useful and helpful. Thanks, Stewart.

[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?

[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.