Proof of Tumblety's Misogyny

[Lechmere]

Fag Break?

[Robert]

Test.

[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

[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.

[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.

[mklhawley]

Let me add more to what McGarry stated:

Martin McGarry hung with Tumblety in 1882. In true misogynist fashion, Tumblety was notorious for warning these young men about women,
“He never failed to warn his correspondent [young Lyons] against lewd women, and in doing it used the most shocking language.” (Grey River Argus, Feb 25, 1889)


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)

I'm sorry, this is actually two separate sources, young Lyons AND McGarry.

Even more corroboration.

[mklhawley]

I guess you chose not to use Durham in your Whitechapel Society article for a reason – because he is not regarded as a reliable or unbiased source on Tumblety.

Oh, I thought you were a person only guided by the evidence. Do you have evidence that this is why I did not use Dunham's comments? That is farthest from the truth. So, why did you state this? Was it because you are trying to pursuade the reader based upon something other than evidence?

[mklhawley]

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.

[mklhawley]

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."

Corroborating his hatred for 'fallen women'. Hmmm. Corroboration. Still dreadfully weak?

[mklhawley]

Let me add more to what McGarry stated:

Martin McGarry hung with Tumblety in 1882. In true misogynist fashion, Tumblety was notorious for warning these young men about women,
“He never failed to warn his correspondent [young Lyons] against lewd women, and in doing it used the most shocking language.” (Grey River Argus, Feb 25, 1889)
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)

[mklhawley]

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.

Now, 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.

Sorry Lechmere and Michael. More corroborating evidence. Do you still think it's dreadfully weak?

[mklhawley]

...and then there was his 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. It had nothing to do with his relationship with men.

[Lechmere]

Mike, I am afraid that no man is a hero to is valet.

I guess you chose not to use Durham in your Whitechapel Society article for a reason – because he is not regarded as a reliable or unbiased source on Tumblety.

I’m not entirely sure what you mean by:
‘to say this is dreadfully weak is weak. Corroborated evidence speaks volumes’
We have lots of instances of people saying Tumblety was a ‘woman hater’ or such like – that is well corroborated.
We also have plenty of stories that corroborate each other about Tumblety warning his male associates against having sexual contact with females. Fallen women make a profession out of offering sexual favours to men, so his antipathy towards them can be seen in that context.

This difficulty in establishing genuine examples of misogyny in Tumblety (and in contrast remember those loyal landladies and that will with the bequest for fallen women) is not fatal to Tumblety's candidature as the Ripper but I guess it doesn't help matters.

[mklhawley]

...and his pal McGarry:

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…” (New York World, Dec 5, 1888)

Sorry Lechmere and Michael, the evidence is quite corroborating to Littlechild's comments that he hated women and wasn't just a lover of men.

[mklhawley]

Lechmere, to say this is dreadfully weak is weak. Corroborated evidence speaks volumes.