Tumblety's Mustache

[DVV]

I feel your pain, but take heart, didn't Cox describe a man with a thick mustache?
Your friend, Brad

Yes Brad,
but poor Blotchy seems a bit short to make a viable Tumblety.
Al will soon found out better suspects, I bet.

Amitiés,
David

[celee]

I loved Tumblety as a suspect (the Evans/Gainey Book helped), but more and more I read about him (especially here) he more I have doubts.

Now this moustache ! Of course, I saw the drawing -like everyone else- but it didn't occur to me that it would be such a problem until now...Damn it.

I'll just have to go back to my list of suspect...snif.

Best Regards,

Al.

I feel your pain, but take heart, didn't Cox describe a man with a thick mustache? Alot of things could have happend. Tumblety could have shaved. Maybe nobody saw the ripper. Abberline claimed no one got a good look at him.

Your friend, Brad

[al2sf]

I loved Tumblety as a suspect (the Evans/Gainey Book helped), but more and more I read about him (especially here) he more I have doubts.

Now this moustache ! Of course, I saw the drawing -like everyone else- but it didn't occur to me that it would be such a problem until now...Damn it.

I'll just have to go back to my list of suspect...snif.

Best Regards,

Al.

[Robert]

Could be, Nancy. I think he approached Kelly on the 9th Nov thus :

"Madam, it is raining hard. Would you care to shelter beneath my moustache?"

[nancyrowina]

It's my belief Tumblety walked off into the night with the organs concealed behind his moustache.

Do you think that where he concealed his knives too?

[nancyrowina]

Now that I think of it, I believe Tumblety's picture on the pamphlet was right after 1888 which would indicate that he had the mustache at the time of the murders. Somebody correct me if I am mistaken.

c.d.

Could he have grown it between the murders and the picture? And quite a few of the witness's do mention a mustache, Emily Walter, J.Best and John Gardener, Israel Schwartz (first man), Joseph Lawende, Mary Ann Cox (A "carroty" mustache at that) and George Hutchinson all mention some type of mustache. Sorry if someones already pointed this out I got excited and didn't read the whole thread.

[Robert]

A site devoted to the moustache in all its forms.

http://mustachesofthenineteenthcentury.blogspot.com/

[Supe]

All this chatter about Tumblety's impressive "lip spinach" reminded me of the article Andy Aliffe did in Ripperologist 78 (April 2007) about The Emperor Norton and Francis Tumblety in San Francisco..Now there was a pair.

Tumblety is fairly well known and Joshua Norton--who stlyed himself "Norton the First, Emperor of North America and Protector of Mexico"--deserves to be. Each had impressive moustaches (Norton added a beard); each loved to parade the streets dressed in mock-military uniforms (accompanied by dogs) and each had an abiding itch for publicity. And there they were, lioving in San Francisco at the same time, in close proximity. They assuredly knew of each other (they competed for the same press space after all) and may well have known each other personally.

The mind boggles at that notion and at their possible conversations. Two world-class wackos in the same place at the same time. Anyway, the article is quite humorous and if anyone out there has not yet read it you should.

Don.

[Dan Norder]

It makes more sense than hiding them behind neckties anyway.

[Robert]

It's my belief Tumblety walked off into the night with the organs concealed behind his moustache.

[Dan Norder]

Well, I don't know... A huge close up of Wilf Gregg's face doesn't make much sense as cover art regardless of whether you could have run the Tumblety photo there or not.

If you and Tim are contractually obligated to not post the image, based upon how you got the print from the historical society in question, that's understandable. What other people do is, of course, beyond your control. I know I've had to pay fees to use images that other people have gone and republished once I've had them out there for people to see, and it'll no doubt happen again. I've also had other people republish images I'd done extensive work on to make them printable, as well as plagiarize quite severely from some articles. Even when things are illegal some people still do it, so when the image in question is in the public domain and not even in private ownership it'll no doubt get out there.

Congratulations to Tim for finding the photo. I know he's done a lot of hard work and detailed research on Tumblety, and it's paid off.

[AdamNeilWood]

Dan,

Quite the reverse - I'd very much like to be able to post the photo right here, right now, but it was supplied to us by Tim with strict instructions on its usage - do you not think I'd have used it on our cover if I could have?

Best wishes
Adam

[Dan Norder]

We have permission to use the photograph just once, on our inner pages, so unfortunately the picture won't be appearing online.

Sure it will. You obviously won't be putting it online because you want people to subscribe, but it's a historical document in the public domain in the holdings of a group dedicated to education and research. It's not like you can prevent it from being used by other people.

[AdamNeilWood]

Tumblety's moustache revealed

Readers of Ripperologist magazine will by now have seen Tumblety's 'tache 'in the flesh', as we published the first known photograph of him in our new issue.

We have permission to use the photograph just once, on our inner pages, so unfortunately the picture won't be appearing online.

To order a copy of Ripperologist 92, or better still subscribe, contact me at the email address below.

Best wishes
Adam
Executive Editor,
Ripperologist magazine

contact@ripperologist.info

[Dan Norder]

Medical opinions, profilers, and the many other often subjective views have not provided us with a clear rationale why these 5, and supposedly no others, were Jacks Canon.

Actually, the five as named by the modern experts on serial killers (or six by some accounts) are only the ones they feel were most likely to have been killed by the same hand, and they usually specify that there almost certainly were more attacks of some sort that the Ripper would have been involved in. I'm not sure where you got the "and supposedly no others" from, but I'm guessing you probably confused what they say with what Macnaghten said.

And let me once again say that's it's sad how certain people insist upon trying to turn every thread on these boards into an excuse for them to try to claim that Mary Kelly wasn't a Ripper victim, etc. Please leave that to the appropriate threads.