Tweet
Hi all,
Instead of publishing this in Rip, I decided to post it instead:
Dunham reported seeing Francis Tumblety’s anatomical collection at the onset of the Civil War in 1861, which included a collection of uterus specimens from different classes of women. Today, experts reject this for two reasons; first, there is no corroborating evidence of Dunham’s story, and second, Dunham had of history of lying in the press, therefore he was lying. I will explain why his story was not a pack of lies and explain the reason why Tumblety would have had an anatomical collection, including uterus specimens, while in Washington DC. I’ll answer each reason separately:
- Reason 1: No corroborating evidence of Tumblety having an anatomical collection. – So, why should we expect corroborating evidence? This collection was not in 1888, at the time of Dunham’s interview, it was around 1861, twenty seven years earlier in Washington DC. Dunham never said Tumblety still has a collection in New York. Clearly, no reporters spent the time finding other witnesses to Dunham’s recollection of events. But, there may just be corroborating evidence. Note the following New York Tribune report published on December 4, 1888, may hold the answer; keeping in mind the Tribune had their own London correspondent, George W. Smalley,
DECEMBER 04, 1888 - New York Tribune
DR. TUMBLETY ARRIVES IN NEW-YORK.
DETECTIVES KEEPING THEIR EYE ON HIM-HIS ARREST IN LONDON HAS EXCITED PEOPLE HERE SOMEWHAT.
Doctor Francis Tumblety or, as he is known in England, Twomblety, is in New-York. He was arrested on suspicion of being implicated in the Whitechapel butcheries. When the French steamer La Bretagne arrive at her pier on Sunday… He has been charged with a fondness for collecting anatomical specimens, and this has made his connection with the Whitechapel atrocities appear probable. It is a fact that after he was discharged for lack of evidence from the accusation of being implicated in the Whitechapel horrors he was re-arrested in London for a violation of the “Maiden Tribute” act and released under 500 pounds bail. He “jumped” his bail and came to America.
The fact that this report was dated after Dunham’s December 1 interview has suggested to some that the Tribune merely reported Dunham’s revelation of Tumblety’s fondness for anatomical specimens, but this report is claiming that Scotland Yard – in 1888 - had knowledge of Tumblety’s fondness. Scotland Yard may have been privy to the Civil War incident. They were indeed told of Tumblety’s Civil War days, which may have found its way into Tumblety’s Scotland Yard dossier (that Chief Inspector Littlechild referred to) by Superintendent Shaw. Notice how William Pinkerton updated Scotland Yard on Francis Tumblety from the Civil War and his hatred of women (something Littlechild stated was a ‘fact on record’),
The Chicago Daily Inter Ocean, 20 November, 1888.
Billy Pinkerton, whose mind is a storehouse of faces, that the rushing world quickly forgets when removed from the immediate arena of its life, late yesterday afternoon, suddenly found without any explanatory introduction, unless a rapt gaze at anevening (sic) paper which he had just bought, could be called an introduction, exclaimed as he walked along Clark street with a reporter of the Inter Ocean:
“Peculiar Dr. Tumblety (looking at the paper, and the description of the supposed Whitechapel murderer.) “Tumblety! No, that’s not it. Something like that, though. Tumbledy. No! Twombley! That’s more like it.”
“What’s more like it,” asked the surprised reporter; astonished at Billy’s evolution of the printed murderer’s name as given in the London cablegram, into some other name, less peculiar and more directory-form.
“What? Why it’s the same man. The very same man that I met in Washington long ago.”
“Well, but what man. What can your Washington man of long ago have to do with the Whitechapel murders?”
I’ll show you, and trail him down, too, for you from that long ago, and then you can judge for yourself whether or not it is not the same man. I first knew that man – this Dr, Tumblety or Tumbledy or Twombly, (I think the last is it) – in Washington during the latter part of ’61…
At that time my duties in Washington were connected with the secret service of the army, and my attention was naturally drawn to him a good deal by his military appearance. But had that not been the case I could not have failed to noticed him, or had my attention drawn to him, for he was the talk of the whole city, and all Washington seemed to know him. In passing up and down Pennsylvania avenue, he was the most conspicuous figure on the street. I soon found out that he was a quack doctor, and that he was scattering broadcast his advertisements of a cure for a certain class of complaints. A little inquiry soon showed that he had flooded the army with his handbills and with objectionable books, so much so that General McClellan issued strict orders that the circulation of these books in the army should be suppressed, on the ground that many of the books were calculated to debase the soldiers, their contents being of an immoral character and their illustrations still more so. Of course this military acknowledgment that the doctor existed only caused a still more wide attention to be turned upon him. He was watched with closer scrutiny, and, at last, it became known that he was in the habit of indulging in certain vices that finally resulted in him being driven from the city. The next time I met him was in Baltimore. Then…
Superintendent Shaw asked me about him. I told him that the boy had undoubtedly told the truth, as the vile character the boy gave of the Doctor was just the character that he had a reputation for in the United States. Up to the time I left London – some three months after that incident – the Doctor had refused to call or, at least, neglected to call for his watch and chain, though they were very valuable. It was finally discovered that he had gone to Paris, his property being left in the hands of the police.
“And what did people who came in contact with the doctor think of his general character?”
“People familiar with the history of the man always talked of him as a brute, and as brutal in his actions. He was known as a thorough woman-hater and as a man who never associated with or mixed with women of any kind. It was claimed that he was educated as a surgeon in Canada and he was said to have been quite an expert in surgical operations…
And then we have Frank White, the London correspondent for the New York Sun reporting on Tumblety in connection with the uterus,
London is as much excited as one would imagine. Scores of arrests have been made and hundreds of theories formed. An American doctor named Twomblety is now held because he is an erratic character, and because one theory is that some American medical institution wants specimens of the female uterus. Which it happens that Jack the Ripper often takes from the bodies of his victims… (The Sun, November 24, 1888)
This report predates the Dunham interview and we see Scotland Yard’s interest in Tumblety in connection with the uterus. Some may argue that their interest was because he was a type of American doctor, but those same people also claim Scotland Yard already knew the uterus specimen/medical institution affair was that of a Philadelphia gynecologist, so why would they have reverted back to this debunk theory with Tumblety?
Point: There seems to be corroboration of Dunham’s recollections of Tumblety having a fondness for the uterus.
- Reason 2: Dunham was a liar; therefore, he lied about Tumblety’s anatomical collection. - Dunham did indeed lie, but he also told the truth. During the Civil War, Dunham was a double agent, and if he wasn’t a good liar, he may very well have been killed by the South. In 1888, he was a lawyer in New York with a family and with no evidence he continued his reptile journalism traits decades later. The following arguments basically state Dunham’s interview is filled with lies, but was it?
1. Tim Riordan, author of Prince of Quacks, convinced many people that Dunham was lying because he claimed Dunham was not in Washington when Tumblety was in late 1861. Well, in the following thread, I demonstrated they were indeed together in DC: http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=5986
Point: Dunham told the truth in his interview.
2. Another claim is that Dunham lied when he stated he had a commission in the Army as a commander. The problem with this is that’s exactly what he had. The commission didn’t last, but so what? When he met Tumblety just after the first Battle of Bull Run, he did what many others were doing at the time when General McClellan was appointed command of the Army of the Potomac, attempted to start up a regiment from his home town. Point: Dunham told the truth in his interview.
3. Dunham was wrong when he stated Tumblety had quartered in H Street, therefore, we can’t trust his recollections. Note how he stated this, “He had very cosy and tastefully arranged quarters in, I believe, H. street. There were three rooms on a floor, the rear one being his office, with a bedroom or two a story higher.” Note how Dunham stated, “I believe”, which means, he admits he could be wrong. I see Dunham being truthful, letting the reader know his recollection might be off on this point.
Point: Dunham’s interview was not a pack of lies and it was filled with correct information.
More to the point, Dunham’s recollections matches exactly what Francis Tumblety would have been attempting to do at that exact time and at that exact location. The only reason why Tumblety went to Washington DC was not to become a surgeon for the General as he claimed, since he really wasn’t a surgeon, it was to get into the inner circle of the military ‘upper class’ for business reasons and make a ton of money. Tumblety always targeted the ones with money, because he wanted their money, and Tumblety certainly did open up an office at this time. He did not have an audience with the General, so who would he have attempted to convince? -The General’s eyes and ears; his officers. Dunham was clear in his interview; Tumblety had a symposium for officers in order to convince them he was a legitimate surgeon. Here’s what Dunham stated,
"At length it was whispered about that he was an adventurer. One day my lieutenant-colonel and myself accepted the the (sic) 'doctor's' invitation to a late dinner--symposium, he called it--at his rooms. He had very cosy and tastefully arranged quarters in, I believe, H. street. There were three rooms on a floor, the rear one being his office, with a bedroom or two a story higher. On reaching the place we found covers laid for eight--that being the 'doctor's' lucky number, he said--several of the guests, all in the military service, were persons with whom we were already acquainted. It was soon apparent that whatever Tumblety's deficiencies as a surgeon, as an amphitryon he could not easily be excelled. His menu, with colored waiters and the et ceteras, was furnished by one of the best caterers in the city. After dinner there were brought out two tables for play--for poker or whist. In the course of the evening some of the party, warmed by the wine, proposed to play for heavy stakes, but Tumblety frowned down the proposition at once and in such a way as to show he was no gambler. Someone 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.
"Then he invited us into his office where he illustrated his lecture, so to speak. One side of this room was entirely occupied with cases, outwardly resembling wardrobes. When the doors were opened quite a museum was revealed--tiers of shelves with glass jars and cases, some round and others square, filled with all sorts of antomical (sic) specimens. The 'doctor' placed on a table a dozen or more jars containing, as he said, the matrices of every class of women. Nearly a half of one of these cases was occupied exclusively with these specimens… (New York World, December 2, 1888)
Tumblety wasn’t just showing Dunham a uterus collection; he was showing the officers his anatomical collection. Tumblety did not have a diploma, proving he was a legitimate surgeon, so he did the next best thing, show off his anatomical collection, a practice of legitimacy in the nineteenth century. Doctor A.W. Bates, PhD, MD, at the Department of Histopathology in the Royal Free Hospital, London, England, affirms this point and explains it was the same in mid-Victorian England. He states,
Anatomy teachers assembled their own collections or ‘museums’ of material with which to illustrate lectures . . . Ownership of a museum indicated that a teacher was likely to be financially solvent and, in the 1820s, possession of a museum worth more than 500 pounds was suggested as a prerequisite for an anatomy teacher to be recognized…
Specific to the individual doctor, professional anatomical collections were a visible testimony of their medical expertise and legitimacy. According to Michael Sappol, curator-historian at the National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, Maryland,
Doctors were known to keep a few specimens or a cabinet of material on display in their offices as trophies and, more broadly, as objects that advertised a medical vocation (as did diplomas, weighty medical tomes, medicines, and instruments). The specimens served as a credential, proof that the doctor had dissected and had special knowledge of the interior of the body.
Just as medical diplomas and credentials placed on a wall of a doctor’s office today provides medical credibility, a private collection of anatomical specimens in the 19th century — presented to a carefully chosen audience — had a similar effect. A non-expert would generally not be in possession of such a cache, since it requires a significant amount of medical knowledge and expertise to create the models.
Tumblety, a man constantly attempting to convince people he was ‘Dr.’ Tumblety, would have known this. Tumblety scamming military officers attempting to demonstrate his legitimacy as a surgeon is exactly what he would have done. On many occasions, we see Tumblety spending liberally in order to promote his ‘upper class’ persona. And we must be honest with ourselves, if this event had nothing to do with supporting Tumblety’s Whitechapel suspect status, the skepticism would be nonexistent.
But, even if it were true that Tumblety had a uterus collection during the Civil War that was almost thirty years earlier. There’s no proof he still had one, as of 1888.
First, as demonstrated by the above Tribune article, it may have been one or the reasons why Scotland Yard took him seriously, as in; it was reported in Tumblety’s Scotland Yard dossier Littlechild referred to. Second, regardless if the event occurred long ago, Tumblety did indeed have a strange interest in one of the three organs that Jack the Ripper had an interest in. This kind of strange interest just doesn’t go away.
Most importantly, we have Tumblety connected to the three internal organs taken by Jack the Ripper; the uterus, the kidney, and the heart. Francis Tumblety stated to Toronto Mail reporter in January 1888 - the very same year as the Ripper murders - that he had kidney and heart disease and was in constant fear of sudden death. In my Tumblety the Woman Hater article, I demonstrated that the serial motive (from the FBI’s list) for Tumblety would not have been sado-sexual (like Jeffry Dahmer), but anger and hatred for a group, women, because he blamed them for the woes in the world and because they decoyed, or lured, young men away from their real partners, older men. He may have even blamed them for his kidney and heart disease. The uterus (what makes a women different), the kidney, and the heart, would have been exactly what Tumblety would have targeted.
Last of all, we have evidence of another motive this man, who was in constant fear of sudden death, would have wanted the organs for. Tumblety explained of attempting to find an elixir to cure all in his pamphlets: http://www.searchingfortruthwithabro...r_Research.php
Of all the suspects, Tumblety is the only one we have an explanation as to why Jack the Ripper selected these three particular organs.
Sincerely,
Mike
Instead of publishing this in Rip, I decided to post it instead:
Dunham reported seeing Francis Tumblety’s anatomical collection at the onset of the Civil War in 1861, which included a collection of uterus specimens from different classes of women. Today, experts reject this for two reasons; first, there is no corroborating evidence of Dunham’s story, and second, Dunham had of history of lying in the press, therefore he was lying. I will explain why his story was not a pack of lies and explain the reason why Tumblety would have had an anatomical collection, including uterus specimens, while in Washington DC. I’ll answer each reason separately:
- Reason 1: No corroborating evidence of Tumblety having an anatomical collection. – So, why should we expect corroborating evidence? This collection was not in 1888, at the time of Dunham’s interview, it was around 1861, twenty seven years earlier in Washington DC. Dunham never said Tumblety still has a collection in New York. Clearly, no reporters spent the time finding other witnesses to Dunham’s recollection of events. But, there may just be corroborating evidence. Note the following New York Tribune report published on December 4, 1888, may hold the answer; keeping in mind the Tribune had their own London correspondent, George W. Smalley,
DECEMBER 04, 1888 - New York Tribune
DR. TUMBLETY ARRIVES IN NEW-YORK.
DETECTIVES KEEPING THEIR EYE ON HIM-HIS ARREST IN LONDON HAS EXCITED PEOPLE HERE SOMEWHAT.
Doctor Francis Tumblety or, as he is known in England, Twomblety, is in New-York. He was arrested on suspicion of being implicated in the Whitechapel butcheries. When the French steamer La Bretagne arrive at her pier on Sunday… He has been charged with a fondness for collecting anatomical specimens, and this has made his connection with the Whitechapel atrocities appear probable. It is a fact that after he was discharged for lack of evidence from the accusation of being implicated in the Whitechapel horrors he was re-arrested in London for a violation of the “Maiden Tribute” act and released under 500 pounds bail. He “jumped” his bail and came to America.
The fact that this report was dated after Dunham’s December 1 interview has suggested to some that the Tribune merely reported Dunham’s revelation of Tumblety’s fondness for anatomical specimens, but this report is claiming that Scotland Yard – in 1888 - had knowledge of Tumblety’s fondness. Scotland Yard may have been privy to the Civil War incident. They were indeed told of Tumblety’s Civil War days, which may have found its way into Tumblety’s Scotland Yard dossier (that Chief Inspector Littlechild referred to) by Superintendent Shaw. Notice how William Pinkerton updated Scotland Yard on Francis Tumblety from the Civil War and his hatred of women (something Littlechild stated was a ‘fact on record’),
The Chicago Daily Inter Ocean, 20 November, 1888.
Billy Pinkerton, whose mind is a storehouse of faces, that the rushing world quickly forgets when removed from the immediate arena of its life, late yesterday afternoon, suddenly found without any explanatory introduction, unless a rapt gaze at anevening (sic) paper which he had just bought, could be called an introduction, exclaimed as he walked along Clark street with a reporter of the Inter Ocean:
“Peculiar Dr. Tumblety (looking at the paper, and the description of the supposed Whitechapel murderer.) “Tumblety! No, that’s not it. Something like that, though. Tumbledy. No! Twombley! That’s more like it.”
“What’s more like it,” asked the surprised reporter; astonished at Billy’s evolution of the printed murderer’s name as given in the London cablegram, into some other name, less peculiar and more directory-form.
“What? Why it’s the same man. The very same man that I met in Washington long ago.”
“Well, but what man. What can your Washington man of long ago have to do with the Whitechapel murders?”
I’ll show you, and trail him down, too, for you from that long ago, and then you can judge for yourself whether or not it is not the same man. I first knew that man – this Dr, Tumblety or Tumbledy or Twombly, (I think the last is it) – in Washington during the latter part of ’61…
At that time my duties in Washington were connected with the secret service of the army, and my attention was naturally drawn to him a good deal by his military appearance. But had that not been the case I could not have failed to noticed him, or had my attention drawn to him, for he was the talk of the whole city, and all Washington seemed to know him. In passing up and down Pennsylvania avenue, he was the most conspicuous figure on the street. I soon found out that he was a quack doctor, and that he was scattering broadcast his advertisements of a cure for a certain class of complaints. A little inquiry soon showed that he had flooded the army with his handbills and with objectionable books, so much so that General McClellan issued strict orders that the circulation of these books in the army should be suppressed, on the ground that many of the books were calculated to debase the soldiers, their contents being of an immoral character and their illustrations still more so. Of course this military acknowledgment that the doctor existed only caused a still more wide attention to be turned upon him. He was watched with closer scrutiny, and, at last, it became known that he was in the habit of indulging in certain vices that finally resulted in him being driven from the city. The next time I met him was in Baltimore. Then…
Superintendent Shaw asked me about him. I told him that the boy had undoubtedly told the truth, as the vile character the boy gave of the Doctor was just the character that he had a reputation for in the United States. Up to the time I left London – some three months after that incident – the Doctor had refused to call or, at least, neglected to call for his watch and chain, though they were very valuable. It was finally discovered that he had gone to Paris, his property being left in the hands of the police.
“And what did people who came in contact with the doctor think of his general character?”
“People familiar with the history of the man always talked of him as a brute, and as brutal in his actions. He was known as a thorough woman-hater and as a man who never associated with or mixed with women of any kind. It was claimed that he was educated as a surgeon in Canada and he was said to have been quite an expert in surgical operations…
And then we have Frank White, the London correspondent for the New York Sun reporting on Tumblety in connection with the uterus,
London is as much excited as one would imagine. Scores of arrests have been made and hundreds of theories formed. An American doctor named Twomblety is now held because he is an erratic character, and because one theory is that some American medical institution wants specimens of the female uterus. Which it happens that Jack the Ripper often takes from the bodies of his victims… (The Sun, November 24, 1888)
This report predates the Dunham interview and we see Scotland Yard’s interest in Tumblety in connection with the uterus. Some may argue that their interest was because he was a type of American doctor, but those same people also claim Scotland Yard already knew the uterus specimen/medical institution affair was that of a Philadelphia gynecologist, so why would they have reverted back to this debunk theory with Tumblety?
Point: There seems to be corroboration of Dunham’s recollections of Tumblety having a fondness for the uterus.
- Reason 2: Dunham was a liar; therefore, he lied about Tumblety’s anatomical collection. - Dunham did indeed lie, but he also told the truth. During the Civil War, Dunham was a double agent, and if he wasn’t a good liar, he may very well have been killed by the South. In 1888, he was a lawyer in New York with a family and with no evidence he continued his reptile journalism traits decades later. The following arguments basically state Dunham’s interview is filled with lies, but was it?
1. Tim Riordan, author of Prince of Quacks, convinced many people that Dunham was lying because he claimed Dunham was not in Washington when Tumblety was in late 1861. Well, in the following thread, I demonstrated they were indeed together in DC: http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=5986
Point: Dunham told the truth in his interview.
2. Another claim is that Dunham lied when he stated he had a commission in the Army as a commander. The problem with this is that’s exactly what he had. The commission didn’t last, but so what? When he met Tumblety just after the first Battle of Bull Run, he did what many others were doing at the time when General McClellan was appointed command of the Army of the Potomac, attempted to start up a regiment from his home town. Point: Dunham told the truth in his interview.
3. Dunham was wrong when he stated Tumblety had quartered in H Street, therefore, we can’t trust his recollections. Note how he stated this, “He had very cosy and tastefully arranged quarters in, I believe, H. street. There were three rooms on a floor, the rear one being his office, with a bedroom or two a story higher.” Note how Dunham stated, “I believe”, which means, he admits he could be wrong. I see Dunham being truthful, letting the reader know his recollection might be off on this point.
Point: Dunham’s interview was not a pack of lies and it was filled with correct information.
More to the point, Dunham’s recollections matches exactly what Francis Tumblety would have been attempting to do at that exact time and at that exact location. The only reason why Tumblety went to Washington DC was not to become a surgeon for the General as he claimed, since he really wasn’t a surgeon, it was to get into the inner circle of the military ‘upper class’ for business reasons and make a ton of money. Tumblety always targeted the ones with money, because he wanted their money, and Tumblety certainly did open up an office at this time. He did not have an audience with the General, so who would he have attempted to convince? -The General’s eyes and ears; his officers. Dunham was clear in his interview; Tumblety had a symposium for officers in order to convince them he was a legitimate surgeon. Here’s what Dunham stated,
"At length it was whispered about that he was an adventurer. One day my lieutenant-colonel and myself accepted the the (sic) 'doctor's' invitation to a late dinner--symposium, he called it--at his rooms. He had very cosy and tastefully arranged quarters in, I believe, H. street. There were three rooms on a floor, the rear one being his office, with a bedroom or two a story higher. On reaching the place we found covers laid for eight--that being the 'doctor's' lucky number, he said--several of the guests, all in the military service, were persons with whom we were already acquainted. It was soon apparent that whatever Tumblety's deficiencies as a surgeon, as an amphitryon he could not easily be excelled. His menu, with colored waiters and the et ceteras, was furnished by one of the best caterers in the city. After dinner there were brought out two tables for play--for poker or whist. In the course of the evening some of the party, warmed by the wine, proposed to play for heavy stakes, but Tumblety frowned down the proposition at once and in such a way as to show he was no gambler. Someone 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.
"Then he invited us into his office where he illustrated his lecture, so to speak. One side of this room was entirely occupied with cases, outwardly resembling wardrobes. When the doors were opened quite a museum was revealed--tiers of shelves with glass jars and cases, some round and others square, filled with all sorts of antomical (sic) specimens. The 'doctor' placed on a table a dozen or more jars containing, as he said, the matrices of every class of women. Nearly a half of one of these cases was occupied exclusively with these specimens… (New York World, December 2, 1888)
Tumblety wasn’t just showing Dunham a uterus collection; he was showing the officers his anatomical collection. Tumblety did not have a diploma, proving he was a legitimate surgeon, so he did the next best thing, show off his anatomical collection, a practice of legitimacy in the nineteenth century. Doctor A.W. Bates, PhD, MD, at the Department of Histopathology in the Royal Free Hospital, London, England, affirms this point and explains it was the same in mid-Victorian England. He states,
Anatomy teachers assembled their own collections or ‘museums’ of material with which to illustrate lectures . . . Ownership of a museum indicated that a teacher was likely to be financially solvent and, in the 1820s, possession of a museum worth more than 500 pounds was suggested as a prerequisite for an anatomy teacher to be recognized…
Specific to the individual doctor, professional anatomical collections were a visible testimony of their medical expertise and legitimacy. According to Michael Sappol, curator-historian at the National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, Maryland,
Doctors were known to keep a few specimens or a cabinet of material on display in their offices as trophies and, more broadly, as objects that advertised a medical vocation (as did diplomas, weighty medical tomes, medicines, and instruments). The specimens served as a credential, proof that the doctor had dissected and had special knowledge of the interior of the body.
Just as medical diplomas and credentials placed on a wall of a doctor’s office today provides medical credibility, a private collection of anatomical specimens in the 19th century — presented to a carefully chosen audience — had a similar effect. A non-expert would generally not be in possession of such a cache, since it requires a significant amount of medical knowledge and expertise to create the models.
Tumblety, a man constantly attempting to convince people he was ‘Dr.’ Tumblety, would have known this. Tumblety scamming military officers attempting to demonstrate his legitimacy as a surgeon is exactly what he would have done. On many occasions, we see Tumblety spending liberally in order to promote his ‘upper class’ persona. And we must be honest with ourselves, if this event had nothing to do with supporting Tumblety’s Whitechapel suspect status, the skepticism would be nonexistent.
But, even if it were true that Tumblety had a uterus collection during the Civil War that was almost thirty years earlier. There’s no proof he still had one, as of 1888.
First, as demonstrated by the above Tribune article, it may have been one or the reasons why Scotland Yard took him seriously, as in; it was reported in Tumblety’s Scotland Yard dossier Littlechild referred to. Second, regardless if the event occurred long ago, Tumblety did indeed have a strange interest in one of the three organs that Jack the Ripper had an interest in. This kind of strange interest just doesn’t go away.
Most importantly, we have Tumblety connected to the three internal organs taken by Jack the Ripper; the uterus, the kidney, and the heart. Francis Tumblety stated to Toronto Mail reporter in January 1888 - the very same year as the Ripper murders - that he had kidney and heart disease and was in constant fear of sudden death. In my Tumblety the Woman Hater article, I demonstrated that the serial motive (from the FBI’s list) for Tumblety would not have been sado-sexual (like Jeffry Dahmer), but anger and hatred for a group, women, because he blamed them for the woes in the world and because they decoyed, or lured, young men away from their real partners, older men. He may have even blamed them for his kidney and heart disease. The uterus (what makes a women different), the kidney, and the heart, would have been exactly what Tumblety would have targeted.
Last of all, we have evidence of another motive this man, who was in constant fear of sudden death, would have wanted the organs for. Tumblety explained of attempting to find an elixir to cure all in his pamphlets: http://www.searchingfortruthwithabro...r_Research.php
Of all the suspects, Tumblety is the only one we have an explanation as to why Jack the Ripper selected these three particular organs.
Sincerely,
Mike
Comment