Tumblety's Mustache

Hi Mike,

The "organ procuring" theory is regrettably nonsense. The vast majority of mutilating serial-killers have had a sexual, rather than pecuniary incentive behind the murders, and I see no reason to place Jack outside that majority, especially when we consider than extraneous (i.e. non-uterus) mutilations he embarked upon.

All the best,
Ben

Hi Ben,

If you are using the Canon to determine what the killer may have been after, I dont blame you for being dismissive about possible motives concerning individual murders. Since these are technically 5 individual murders, until and unless a satisfactory explanation can be made for the murders that involve no postmortem mutilations at all, or seemingly self indulgent mutilations that have nothing specifically to do with womens abdomens,....my door is open to entertaining explanations that actually address the issues. I do not seek to have motivations for a murder within the Canon meet criteria of other murders within the Canon that have not been proven related, or are very obvious deviations from method, locations, and resulting injuries on others within the same Canon.

Meaning...there are 2 murders within the Canon that had post mortem mutilations on the abdomens, and that had a uterus, complete and partial, taken from each victim. And one other that had the preliminary actions of those two.

These are the murders within the Canon that I personally can legitimately place under one killer, as they are the only ones that have seemingly matched "objectives"....abdominal organs specific to females taken, and seem similar in methodologies and environments. Outdoors, in near darkness, taking less than 10 minutes from start to finish.

Im not about to accept that a killer did not want uteri, based on Liz Strides single cut, or Marys many superflous ones. They have almost nothing in common with the murders of prostitutes who had their abdomens opened and abdominal organs taken immediately after the throats were slit.

Maybe Liz's killer didnt want uteri, or Mary's... but Annies and Kates sure did. And Pollys appears to have goals that were incompletely achieved.... when compared with Annie and Kate, but the results are undeniable I think in those two uteri cases.

Cheers Ben.

[Ben]

Hi Mike,

The "organ procuring" theory is regrettably nonsense. The vast majority of mutilating serial-killers have had a sexual, rather than pecuniary incentive behind the murders, and I see no reason to place Jack outside that majority, especially when we consider than extraneous (i.e. non-uterus) mutilations he embarked upon.

All the best,
Ben

It seems no-one considers that the good "doctor" might commission his acquisition of uteri....which in Tumblety's case, would be one of the only feasible motives....based on some questionable statements concerning a collection of them he had in jars. Being a woman hater falls short of a real motive for opening dead women in the streets. I think the story source is questionable, but not neccesarily the salient "facts". But why would he seek out samples himself?

Why risk jail or worse when there are starving, unscrupulous characters available at every street corner who would literally kill for the alleged 20 pounds per sample....if Dr T was the man who approached Teaching Hospitals for samples in the first place.

Sam once said that the 20 pounds in 1888 would have roughly the equivalent of 1200 pounds sterling in todays values.....how many people in Whitechapel might have killed, and worse, for that kind of money?

Cheers cd, all.

[c.d.]

Hi CD



I tend to agree. If Tumblety was the killer, he almost certainly wasn't seen by any known witness, and that doesn't seem very likely at all.

Cheers,
Ben

...even more so if you add in his heighth and age.

c.d.

[Ben]

Hi CD

Since I can't believe that any of the witnesses would miss it, I have to believe that none of them are describing him.

I tend to agree. If Tumblety was the killer, he almost certainly wasn't seen by any known witness, and that doesn't seem very likely at all.

Cheers,
Ben

[c.d.]

Hi Ben,

I think you are probably right. If it was just an ordinary looking mustache the journalist wouldn't have gone to lengths to describe it.

Now if I understood the article correctly, this interview takes place shortly after Tumblety has returned to New York which would mean that he had that very conspicuous mustache while he was in London at the time of the murders. Since I can't believe that any of the witnesses would miss it, I have to believe that none of them are describing him. Of course it is still possible that he was the Ripper and was not seen by any witnesses.

c.d.

[Ben]

Hi CD,

Does it sound like it matches his appearance on the suspects list on these boards?

I think it does, more or less, expect of course for the fact that it was black at the time of the interview, rather than greying as depicted in the pamphlet photo. The "trimmed close" reference is a bit confusing, but the journalist probably meant that it was neatly trimmed despite its size (rather than having lots of unruly stray hairs etc).

Ben

[c.d.]

I am not sure that I understand that description of his mustache especially the trimmed close part. Does it sound like it matches his appearance on the suspects list on these boards?

c.d.

[Ben]

Here's the "Tumblety Talks" article:

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/rip-tumblety-talks.html

The moustache appears to have been a highly conspicuous affair:

"He is a powerfully built man and stands 6 feet 2 inches in his stockings. His long black mustache has been trimmed close and reaches down in the shape of a thick growth of beard around his chin, which he keeps smooth shaven."

[Steve S]

I would guess that type of moustache wasn't all that uncommon at the time...
Steve

[Robert]

Hi CD

I may be wrong here, because I'm going from memory - alas I cannot put my finger on the article - but I think that a recent find of Roger Palmer's (a Press report from December 1888) does show that Tumblety's appearance at that time wasn't nearly so outlandish as we might think.

Robert

[c.d.]

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.

[steje73]

D'you know what? That never even occurred to me. Even after thinking that his tash was uncommonly large, it didn't click that nobody mentioned it.
Haha oh dear. I need to pay attention more.

[c.d.]

I know this has been discussed on the old boards but I think it is deserving of another round. Considering the size of Tumblety's mustache, is it at all possible that witnesses would not have commented on it? I don't think that they would have simply said that the person they saw had a mustache. I would think that it would have been visible even from looking at him from the back because it stuck out so long.

Wasn't there a pamphlet or book with his picture on the cover and a date just prior to 1888 indicating that he was still sporting it prior to that time?

I just can't see Tumblety wearing a fake mustache. His ego could not have withstood it falling off at an inopportune moment.

So, if any of the witnesses actually saw the Ripper, does their failure to describe Tumblety's mustache go a long way to clearing him as a viable suspect?

c.d.