Tumblety's Mustache

[caz]

Hi Ben,

Well said. Any similarity between two murders may be an indication of one killer at work. But it's just not sensible to ignore all the similarities and then use the differences to argue for separate killers with quite distinct motives. There's nowhere to go with it, and think of all the potential clues one might be tossing away in the process.

Why does anyone still think the organ harvesting for profit motive has legs in this day and age? If the evidence allows for one man with a knife attacking various unknown women for the sheer hell of it, doing whatever takes his fancy when he can snatch some time alone with their dead bodies, then surely that would explain everything, from his motivation to how he managed to remain unidentified. The idea of Dr Tumblety paying some pauper who risked his neck to get the rather pathetic specimens that would have been retrieved at 29 Hanbury and Mitre Square seems every bit as wild as stroke victim Dr Gull publicly slaughtering street women on the orders of a prince.

Love,

Caz
X

[Dan Norder]

Hi Roy,

Here is the picture. Potrait of Tumblety that appeared in his 2nd booklet 1889.

That's not Tumblety. That came from the Crime Library, or a site that copied it from there. They made a mistake.

If you take a look at the gallery of images used by the Crime Library you'll see that some images of Sickert and Tumblety have been mislabeled.

The close up of Tumblety's face with the huge 'stache has been labeled "Sickert later in life". Those two captions should be switched. The one you posted above as Tumblety is Sickert, and the big 'stache image is the one that was on the cover of Tumblety's book.

Similarly, the image labeled "Walter Sickert painting The Camden Town Murder, also titled What Shall We Do For the Rent?" is actually Tumblety being arrested from his pamphlet, and the one labeled "Tumblety arrested" is the Camden Towm murder painting by Sickert.

The salient portion of the article was that Dr T admitted to being in Whitechapel and being charged with the murders.

Considering that the only thing we have actual records of him having been charged with was an offense that he wouldn't want spread all over the papers (homosexual acts) and the papers had already claimed he was arrested in connection with the Ripper murders, it's no surprise that he went with a story that was both already well known and blown over instead of the one that would be new and would have pretty much all his potential customers think badly of him. Better to paint the London police as incompetents who went around arrested any American wearing a certain kind of hat than to admit that he was caught consorting with young male prostitutes.

R.J. Palmer has a history of assuming that anything Tumblety said that works with his theory that he was the Ripper must be true, and that anything that Tumblety said that goes against that theory must be a lie. It's certainly easier for him that way, but it's not very realistic. Tumblety would have had lots of reasons to lie about things that had nothing to do with the Ripper case. Saying that Tumblety "admitted" to being arrested in connection with the Ripper case so it must be true is about as naive as assuming that because he sold drugs that he claimed were miracle cures for acne or because he told everyone about how the police unfairly targeted him for persecution in the US for making doctors obsolete that both of those statements must be true also. Of course he wasn't going to say, "Oh, that Ripper thing? The U.S. papers got that wrong. I was really arrested for performing sexual acts with males, and the evidence was so strong that I jumped bail instead of sticking around to get locked up over it."

[Dan Norder]

It's very important not to fine-tune a serial killer's MO to too great an extent.

Absolutely. Some people are so restrictive in what they consider matches of MO that no known serial killers would fit those criteria, even the ones we've caught and know exactly which victims they killed and how.

From a criminological point of view, Kelly's murder had a great deal in common with Eddowes and Chapman.

And, speaking from signature analysis instead of just pulling trivial details out of a hat, Kelly's murder has more in common with the killings of Eddowes and Chapman than Nichols' does, but nobody wants to discard Polly from the list... largely because nobody has a suspect theory that falls apart if Nichols is included, while there are a variety of suspect theories that have problems if Kelly is included.

[steje73]

Wouldn't 'Tumblety's Mustache' be an excellent name for a prog rock band?

[Ben]

And, speaking from signature analysis instead of just pulling trivial details out of a hat, Kelly's murder has more in common with the killings of Eddowes and Chapman than Nichols' does

Agreed, Dan.

It could even be advanced that Nichols has more in common with Tabram than the later "canonicals".

All the best,
Ben

[Roy Corduroy]

That's not Tumblety.

I am e-mailing Admin to have my post deleted.

Thank you,

Roy

[Roy Corduroy]

Hi everyone,

Sorry about the mistake with the drawings. But I pick myself back up and continue.

I have three problem, all of a basic, common-sense nature, with Dr. T.

(1) Height
(2) Age
(3) Not a local man.

Having said that however, he was and will always be suspect. The Littlechild letter was a major find. And certain things have been extrapolated which are valuable. Such as Batty St. Lodger. I read Mr. Bromley's recent article in Ripperology, thank you Don Souden for that. His analysis was there was nothing to it. But Evans has brought up the possiblity of the Gray's Inn Road piece being a "plant" by police. Nonetheless, my point is, this whole investigation ensues because a suspect was named, and then it is worked through.

I respect any author who goes out on a limb toting that 800 pound gorilla called Jack the Ripper and names a suspect and says "He did it." Endless discussions of MO, proclivities and such become static after awhile.

Even the best selling suspect books, which are generally poo-pooed, have a silver lining. Because they are so popular, they are stocked in the public library and you can read them for free.

Roy

[perrymason]

Agreed, Dan.

It could even be advanced that Nichols has more in common with Tabram than the later "canonicals".

All the best,
Ben

Hi Ben, all,

Its not like I expected any broad agreement Ben, lots of folks believe as you do, and Caz, and Dan. Im fine with that, and the fact that I am in agreement with others that are experts in the field. We dont all agree...go figure.

I think to link Tabram and Nichols, and to ignore the opening up of a womans abdomen post mortem... which is present in 2 other "Ripper" deaths, is just following a mad slasher around, but thats obviously an easily saleable proposition, and your business. How you recocile Stride, and Kelly is a similar conundrum. Rather than trimming the square peg to fit the round hole, I prefer to look for the square shaped space first.

I wonder if such arguments took place about the shape of the globe before the truth was discovered.

No-one entertains ideas about objectives beyond mere bloodlust or free form cutting, and I wonder if thats a legacy of Macnaughten and others, or the letters. Neither of which likely have any real bearing on what actually transpired with the 5 women in question.

Best regards all.

[Dan Norder]

Rather than trimming the square peg to fit the round hole, I prefer to look for the square shaped space first.

As pointed out to you several times now, the people who are considered experts in the profession that determines whether victims are linked or not say the exact opposite of what you say. Your opinion on the shapes of pegs obviously isn't very trustworthy.

[perrymason]

As pointed out to you several times now, the people who are considered experts in the profession that determines whether victims are linked or not say the exact opposite of what you say. Your opinion on the shapes of pegs obviously isn't very trustworthy.

Hi Dan,

You know who I referred to, and that I do so respecting privacy and not speaking for others. But there are leading experts in the field today who have not been convinced that more than 3 murders were committed by one man. 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.

Im just a reader of these cases that agrees with the viewpoint that abdominal mutilations post mortem were committed by one man, and that all the victims were female has led me to suggest possible motivational criteria for some murders,...like economic gain. The story that Teaching Hospitals had been approached the previous year with requests for uterus specimens was denied by one of the facilities. It would appear that did happen.

Did that spawn any of the carnage the following year? I dont know....but 2 women lost their uterus, and another appears to have been prepped for abdominal street surgery.

I appreciate the way you phrased your response, you may think my ideas are off base, but there are a lot of off base suggestions offered in this venue. Mine are questions really....I have no theory or agenda.

Best regards Dan.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Agreed, Dan.

It could even be advanced that Nichols has more in common with Tabram than the later "canonicals".

All the best,
Ben

Absolutely not. The murders of Tabram and Nichols have practically nothing in common.
Nor do I understand why anyone should consider ever excluding Nichols from the canonical list since her murder contains all the important hallmarks (the deep throat cut, the direction of the abdominal mutilations and the focus on the genital area etc) as can be seen on the later canonicals. The only difference is that she wasn't opened up to the same extent as the others and no organs were taken. But the important trademarks are definitely there.
Tabram's murder, on the other hand, show no similarities with any of those elements.

All the best

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

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

I tend to agree with that.
Not to mention the fact, that the idea of organ procuring (which was supported and put forward also by coroner Baxter at one of the inquests) was dismissed by several medical authorites, who stated that human organs were easily accessible at any medical institution at that time.

All the best

[perrymason]

As I indicated, Im not married to any uterus black market scenario...but I believe Annies mutilation and theft, was in the opinion of the presiding official, the object of the killers interest in her. Suggesting at least that she may have been killed in order to obtain that specific organ.

We have Germanic folklore uses, we may have ritual uses, and we know that, I would imagine complete, uteri at some point in 1887 were sought, for 20 pounds ea.

Pollys attraction for her killer we dont know, but we know he primarily assaulted her midsection....Annies as I mentioned may have been to obtain a specific organ,.... with Liz we can only speculate why she died as there are no visible traces of further intent....with Kate, that killer wanted more than just organs and abdominal mutilations, but the organs chosen to take include a partial uterus, making this the only case where consecutive killings (assuming Liz was not a Ripper victim for a moment) include the removal and theft of the same organ,...and Marys killer wanted the uterus out of Mary, but had no interest in taking it, choosing instead the only organ from a chest cavity.

Its too easy I believe to just link them. The time, the place, the choice of victim and location, or acceptance thereof,....the hours he kills, the Killing Zone, the throat slits, the non-professional semi-surgical hand....etc.

But in plain terms, those are curiosities in terms of practices or objectives... the abdominal post mortem mutilations. Particularly when linked with the times available at some sites.


Best regards.

[Ben]

Did that spawn any of the carnage the following year? I dont know....but 2 women lost their uterus, and another appears to have been prepped for abdominal street surgery.

Hi Mike,

We don't know if Nichols' killer intended any organ extractions, and in Eddowes' case, a kidney was also removed in addition to extensive facial mutilations and cuts to the body. This fact alone should put paid to any suggestion that the whole purpose of the murder was organ removal. When "experts" are referred to, we invariably mean experts in these types of crimes, and I don't know of any any such expert who has ever gone on record and stated that Jack only killed three victims.

As I mentioned before, the uturus is the easiest organ to excise from the abdominal cavity once the unpocketable intestines are cast aside.

There's no harm whatsoever in facing the questions, but we have more than enough indications to place the "ecomonic" motive fairly confidently in the "probably not" pile. Most other serials don't sharely nearly as much in common as Tabram through to Kelly.

Best regards,
Ben

[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.