Ripperologist 144: June 2015

[GUT]

Under dear Rip I was worried for a minute or two, I though we'd got a letter from the other side, with the heading a "Letter from Francis Tumblety".

[GUT]

I am not sure how "Ripped : Mary Jane Kelly" got into the non-fiction section.

It seems to me to be fatally flawed by the lack of referencing and indeed of explanations as to why the conclusion was reached that they person identified was the right person.

Boy I am getting picky now.

[mklhawley]

Well, apparently Gareth Williams does not want to back up his unsupported comments in his editorial. Specific to his faulty premise that the reason why Scotland Yard considered Tumblety a suspect, i.e., his sexual proclivities, a correct interpretation of Littlechild's letter demonstrates it was his extremely bitter, remarkable feelings towards women - hatred. Notice a witness to his unusual hatred of women at the time of the murders:

Buffalo Courier, December 7, 1888
MAY BE THE MAN.
A Commercial Traveler’s Story of Dr. Francis Tumblety.
He Knew Him Well and Thinks He May Have Committed the Whitechapel Murder – The Doctor’s Strange Conduct in England.
“I believe he may be the man!” This was the exclamation of C.A. Bloom at the Mansion house last evening after he had finished reading an account of the search of the New York police for Dr. Tumblety, who is thought to be the Whitechapel murderer.
“I have known the man for years,” continued Mr. Boom, “and the mysterious circumstances under which I met him in London last October leads me to believe that there is some ground for suspecting him of these terrible deeds.”
A reporter of The Courier chanced to overhear the above statements and soon learned the following story from Mr. Bloom:
“I have known this Dr. Tumblety for the past fifteen years. The first time I ever met him was at the Burnett house in Cinncinnati (sic), years ago. I travel for the Royal Baking Powder Company, and since that time I have met him in nearly every city in the United States. My business takes me into nearly every quarter of the commercial world. During the past summer and early fall I was in London, England, for three months. One pleasant day in October, in company with my wife and another lady, I was going down Regent street. At Oxford street I was greatly surprised to see this same Dr. Tumblety enter the omnibus. I spoke to him but his greeting did not seem to be as cordial as it had always been here in America.
“But what surprised me was his actions when he found that I was in company with the ladies. When I introduced my wife to him his actions were so strange that she has spoken about it several times since and has asked me what I knew about him. He seemed to be very ill as ease and never raised his eyes from the floor after he had learned that the ladies were with me. As I told you, he got on at Oxford street, and only went as far as Piccadilly, when he left the omnibus very hurriedly without any word or sign.
“All this seemed very strange to me at the time. It was only a very short distance from Regent street to Piccadilly – about as far as from here to the Central depot – and I am very sure that he intended to ride much farther when he got into the omnibus. About the only talk that I had with him was to ask where he was stopping, and he simply replied that he should spend the winter in southern France or Italy, and thought that he should probably go to Monte Carlo. He was dressed in his usual gaudy manner, with his heavy watch fop dangling from his coatpocket, but never before had I seen him so uncongenial and restless.
...Mr. Bloom is a very intelligent and dignified gentleman, about fifty years of age, and looks after the interests of the company in all parts of the world. When asked his opinion about Dr. Tumblety being the author of the Whitechapel deeds, he replied:
“Of course I am not in a position to give any opinion in the matter, but I tell you sincerely that I never had anything strike me quite so forcibly when I learned of his arrest after seeing his strange actions that day in the omnibus. The fact of meeting him there was not in the least strange, for I had run across him in all parts of the world; but that day he would not look me in the face, and acted in so unnatural a manner that the ladies were almost alarmed. He was always an eccentric character, and I could never learn anything about his business, for he usually spent the most of his time in his room at the hotels, and always seemed far more willing to learn about others’ business than to tell of his own. There is certainly a great mystery about it all.”


Gareth, even 'modern eyes' can see contemporary investigators appropriately took Tumblety seriously as a suspect. But of course not you Gareth. You are not 'gullible'.

Sadly, others not involved in the Ripper case have been misguided by your dated readings of 'subsequent Tumblety research'.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Mike. These days the prevailing views are that Tumblety was not demonstrably violent towards women, was in fact gay, did not own a uteri collection (one of the main reasons he seemed suspicious), and was probably in jail when Mary Kelly was murdered. YOU don't hold these views, but most people do. I don't understand why or how some could argue that no one ever suspected him of being the Ripper, since it's very well documented that he was a suspect, but the general consensus nowadays is that he doesn't add up to being a good or likely Ripper suspect.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mklhawley]

Hi Mike. These days the prevailing views are that Tumblety was not demonstrably violent towards women, was in fact gay, did not own a uteri collection (one of the main reasons he seemed suspicious), and was probably in jail when Mary Kelly was murdered. YOU don't hold these views, but most people do. I don't understand why or how some could argue that no one ever suspected him of being the Ripper, since it's very well documented that he was a suspect, but the general consensus nowadays is that he doesn't add up to being a good or likely Ripper suspect.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hi Tom,

Thanks. I want to make it clear, I don't hold these views based upon mere belief but evidence, such as the Littlechild Letter, the above article. I also demonstrated why there was a logical reason Tumblety would have shown his anatomical collection to the General's officers. Private anatomical museums were used as a diploma, and since Tumblety didn't have a diploma, he used it to convince the General.

Besides, I'm not done presenting my material. The problem is, the so-called Ripper experts have made a conclusion when all of the evidence has yet to be presented. When you say he doesn't add up, it's because many have not read all of the research or future research.

Did you know Tumblety told a Toronto reporter in January 1888 that because of his kidney and heart disease, he was in constant fear of sudden death? How intriguing that Tumblety is associated with the very same anatomical organs taken from the Ripper suspect; the kidney, the heart, and the uterus. There's more to Tumblety and the uterus than just the collection, by the way.

What other suspect can be connected to the kidney, the heart, and the uterus?

But, that's actually not my point. Good ol' Gareth was factually incorrect and then based his lack of gullibility on a misconception.


I see it as a case of assimilation v. accommodation, and so-called experts are most prone to this.

Thanks again, Tom.

Mike

[mklhawley]

Well, since it's clear a few of the experts do not read my articles in Rip, allow me to highlight a couple of findings in Anderson’s Furtive Mission in North America:

1. Inspector Andrews making his way to New York certainly was not out of the question; especially since the border is less than thirty miles from Montreal ; the city he was reported to have left to New York from. Who said it had to be New York City?

2. Recall, New York World correspondent, E. Tracy Greaves, on November 17, 1888, broke the story of Tumblety being arrested on suspicion of the Whitechapel crimes then held for Gross Indecency and Indecent Assault. Interestingly, all subsequent newspaper articles reporting on Ripper suspect Tumblety demonstrate they mistakenly believed the initial arrest ‘on suspicion’ was after his November 14 date of warrant. Check the news reports. They did not know that his initial arrest, or placement into custody, as recorded on the Criminal Court Calendars, was on November 7.

…except Canadian Deputy Minister William Smith. Hmmm, must not have gotten this information from the papers.


Congratulations to Adam Wood for finding a photograph of Canadian Deputy Minister William Smith.


3. The reports were right; an English detective certainly did chase Tumblety across the Atlantic to New York.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Amanda]

Hi Mike,

Don't shoot me down, but I think it's fruitless to condemn an article after it's already been published.
I've had considerable criticism over my recent book publication & the way in which I chose to present the facts. However, I feel that I have more expert knowledge on my chosen subject than any of my critics & can hold my head up.
I'm sure you feel the same about Tumblety.

If I were you I'd bite my tongue now, get stuck in to getting your research watertight & publish your findings in the most gripping read ever!
I admire anyone who has spent as much time examining data as you obviously have.
All the negative comments that I have received on here have done nothing but make me even more determined to write a second book.
If you believe that you can nail Tumblety as a viable Ripper suspect go for it!

Amanda

[Robert]

Hi Mike

I doubt if Gareth has seen your posts, for he has not been active on this site since 17th January (as Sam Flynn).

[mklhawley]

Thank you, Robert.

Hi Amanda,

These boards are the perfect place to debate articles, and I look forward for anyone to respond to mine. Sammy's editorial is different. It's a baseless statement designed to sabotage the first two articles by suggesting the top experts in the field consider the prospects of Tumblety a complete joke, but he did it with an all-out false statement followed by outdated, inaccurate information. I actually agree with him if his premises were correct, but they're not. Apparently, one of the so-called top experts in the field is weak on his expertise.



Mike

[Hunter]

Although I only read "Sammy's" editorial like... three times, I evidently missed something. Where does he mention "experts" and who might these experts be ?

While I'm at it... a chicken and the egg conundrum... Which came first, the expert or the gullible? Inquiring minds want to know.

[jmenges]

I don't believe for one moment Gareth's editorial was designed to sabotage your or David's articles. The mere suggestion that this was his motivation is insulting to him and to the editorial board of the Rip who chose to publish it. I have a huge interest in Tumblety, I do not believe he was the Ripper, and yet still managed to be thrilled to read more about him in this issue.

JM

[Tom_Wescott]

I believe the 'expert' referred to by Mike is Gareth himself. I agree with JM that Gareth's intention was not to sabotage articles printed in the journal, though I see Mike's point. As an author putting forth a piece that argues for Tumblety as a legit Ripper, it must be uncomfortable to see Tumblety stated to be absolved of the crimes in the editorial preceding it. Although I personally agree with Gareth's conclusion, I'm sensitive to Mike's perspective that perhaps that one sentence could have been worded a little more diplomatically.

Having said that, I'm not sure David Barrat thinks Tumblety was the Ripper. I also am not sure how Mike expects us to take future research into consideration when commenting or reaching our conclusions in the present.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mklhawley]

I don't believe for one moment Gareth's editorial was designed to sabotage your or David's articles. The mere suggestion that this was his motivation is insulting to him and to the editorial board of the Rip who chose to publish it. I have a huge interest in Tumblety, I do not believe he was the Ripper, and yet still managed to be thrilled to read more about him in this issue.

JM

JM,

You don't think Gareth has insulted Tumblety researchers with his comments?

I could care less about Gareth, but I will apologize to Adam for even insinuating this was his intentions.

To be honest, the sabotage comment was my sophomoric attempt to get Gareth back on the threads. Maybe one of you has his email?



Mike

[mklhawley]

Although I only read "Sammy's" editorial like... three times, I evidently missed something. Where does he mention "experts" and who might these experts be ?

While I'm at it... a chicken and the egg conundrum... Which came first, the expert or the gullible? Inquiring minds want to know.

Well, since you read it three times and apparently haven't found his mistakes, I guess you don't fit in the expert category.

[Tom_Wescott]

To be honest, the sabotage comment was my sophomoric attempt to get Gareth back on the threads. Maybe one of you has his email?



Mike

If you send him a PM it might notify him by e-mail. Or you can e-mail him through Ripperologist. Or just visit him at his blog, which is isabotagetumbletytheories at blogspot.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott