|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Randy Scholl
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, June 29, 2003 - 1:25 am: |       |
I'm posting this because I haven't seen any debates here (in this section) on whether or not Tumblety is a viable suspect.
Personally, I think Tumblety is a good suspect for several reasons, perhaps the biggest one being his flight to America shortly after the Kelly murder, and his collection of wombs in jars, but there are some problems as well.
Some arguments against Tumblety as a viable suspect I would dismiss as weak, for example the argument that "He was a homosexual, and homosexuals tend to pick victims of their own gender" -- which, even if it's true is hardly conclusive, and secondly, according to his own statements, he had claimed to have been married at one time to a woman who later turned out to be a prostitute. So it would be hard to make the case that he was exclusively homosexual, but rather it's seems likely to me that his choice of men as sexual partners could well have been a direct result of his mysogynistic feelings and not necessarily because of natural proclivities towards members of his own sex. (And his mysogyny appears to be pretty well established)
Another argument which I feel is slightly stronger, but still hardly conclusive, is that he may have been in custody during the Kelly murder. Personally, however, I see no reason to assume that he was in custody, since his first arrest was for misdemeanor sex crimes, and we're being asked to believe that he made bail for the later, more serious implications in the Ripper murders, and yet he couldn't make bail for the prior, less serious charges? But I wouldn't necessarily dismiss that argument out of hand, so I expect that we won't be able to say for sure until it's fully established whether or not he was indeed in custody at the time.
Myself, I think the strongest argument against Tumblety being the Ripper, is that there's simply no strong evidence that he was homicidal or violent at all. Sure there were a few cases of death by malpractice (well, at least one anyway) but that's not necessarily a willful act of murder. So without strong evidence of a homicidal bent, the case for Dr. T being killer is weakened considerably. (Of course this does not in any way constitute a disproof, but it does indicate where the pro-Tumblety case needs further support)
Aside from this, I'd really like to see more confirmation of the "ripper-like murders" which allegedly occurred in Jamaica and Nicaragua, and furthermore, a clearer link to Tumblety being in those places at those times. Personally, I can't even say at this time if these murders even occurred, much less that Tumblety was the culprit.
|
Stephen P. Ryder
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 2756
Registered: 10-1997
| | Posted on Monday, June 30, 2003 - 10:52 am: | |
Regarding Tumblety and violence, there is an article from the Brooklyn Daily Eagle which suggests Tumblety kicked one of his patients several times in the ribs, and pushed him down a stairwell:
http://casebook.org/press_reports/brooklyn_daily_eagle/640510.html
Stephen P. Ryder, Editor
Casebook: Jack the Ripper |
Randy Scholl
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, June 30, 2003 - 5:20 pm: | |
To Mr. Ryder:
Thanks for the link. I'm still not sure if this is enough to establish that he'd be capable of slashing random women, but it's certainly a start, since it shows a very callous attitude.
Which in an offhand way sort of leads me to another question for the board. Namely, assuming Tumblety was indeed the Ripper, what personality type would he be most likely to fall under? For example, would he be more likely to be a thrill-seeking sociopath or perhaps a religious fanatic on a mission? (Certain aspects of his personality garnered from here and from Evans' book could suggest either possibility to me. Or perhaps he had elements of both.)
|
JEANNE RYAN
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, July 05, 2003 - 3:08 pm: | |
IF DR. T FLED TO N.Y. WOULDN,T THERE BE SOME RIPPER-LIKE MURDERS THERE AT THAT TIME? |
Stephen Lorenzon
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 15, 2003 - 12:32 pm: | |
That to me is the avenue of research that needs to be conducted into Tumblety. There may well be that murders have been committed but the bodies well hidden or disposed of. after mary Kelly, it was clear that multilation was on the increase and quite possibly, the bodies were cut up and better disposed of. It would be interesting to see if the incidences of people missing rose in the areas Tumblety frequented. |
Glenn A
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, July 27, 2003 - 10:52 am: | |
Hi everyone.
Randy!
If Tumbelty indeed was a homosexual, this is not something to be taken lightly, in context of him being JTR. Of course, stranger things have happened and we can't say anything for sure, but if that is the case, this is not a weak argument against him as a suspect whatsoever. Serial killers tends mostly to attack the gender representing the object for their sexual fantasies or frustrations. This must be taken in consideration! If Tumbelty was a homosexual, then him being the Ripper is quite unlikely. However, if it is true that he hated women because of his early experience of being fooled by a woman he had fallen in love with and married, that is -- of course -- an interesting point (and which also raises questions regarding his homosexuality) -- then there is a considerable ground for its importance as a psycological motif. However, I don't think this links him strong enough to a killer of female prostitutes.
Anyhow, my biggest problem with Tumbelty as a candidat for the identity of the Ripper, is his physical appearence. I doubt that anyone looking like Tumbelty (with his enormous mustasches and dashy clothes) could disintegrate into thin air through the streets of Whitechapel -- even if he was known for the ability to disappear and using different aliases (the latter was not at all uncommon in those days). OK, some eye-witness claim that Kelly was seen with a man with a large carrot mustasche shortly before the murder, but otherwise he doesen't at all fit in with the general descriptions of JTR.
There are of course a number of suspect theories that I find more ludicrous than Dr. Tumbelty (like the Royal conspiracy, the Maybrick diary etc.), but to me he is one of the least possible suspects, even though there is some interesting and incriminating facts to consider on his behalf.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
crime historian, Sweden |
R.J. Palmer
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 105
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 27, 2003 - 9:57 pm: | |
Glenn--Have you ever checked-out Henry IV Part One by Willy Shakespeare? The notion of dressing-down to go slumming is a fairly old tradition in England. All the best, RJP |
Ray Herbeck, Jr.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, July 28, 2003 - 7:46 pm: | |
Hello anyone...just discovered this website and am fascinated. Have read numerous JTR books, including Patricia Cornwell's on Sickert as a suspect and Evans' on Tumblety. Regarding the latter, I like him as the primary suspect. For one thing, just HOW did he acquire that collection of wombs? (I suspect he'd been killing since the 1860s in America for his "collection.") And, secondly, WHY didn't Cornwell even mention Tumblety as a rival suspect (she mentioned the others)? (I suspect because he is, in her mind, the most viable candidate and therefore punches holes in her own theory.) Ray Herbeck, Jr. |
Glenn A
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, July 28, 2003 - 1:13 am: | |
Hi RJP. Thank you for your response.
No, I didn't know that, Palmer (as a swede I must admit that I have a better grip on Scandinavian traditions than on the english ones). Interesting tradition, by the way. 
However, his clothes are -- as I stated earlier -- not the only problem here concerning his "looks". Looking at the possible appearence of Jack the Ripper (based on the few witness accounts we have), I don't think we're looking for someone like Dr. Tumblety at all.
Moreover, I think we can seriously doubt if he was violent enough to perform the deeds of the Ripper. There are, as far as I know, no actual evidence on this point (please correct me if I'm wrong here). He seems to have been quite a lousy doctor, though...
Best regards
Glenn L Andersson
crime historian, Sweden |
Randy Scholl
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, July 31, 2003 - 7:23 pm: | |
Hi Glenn.
"If Tumbelty was a homosexual, then him being the Ripper is quite unlikely. However, if it is true that he hated women because of his early experience of being fooled by a woman he had fallen in love with and married, that is -- of course -- an interesting point (and which also raises questions regarding his homosexuality) -- then there is a considerable ground for its importance as a psycological motif. However, I don't think this links him strong enough to a killer of female prostitutes."
That's really my basic point. If the story (which he himself related to others) is true then it both calls into question his "homosexuality" and it justifies his having revenge fantasies against women. I would agree that it doesn't establish a solid link to the murders in any case.
In another post you write:
"Moreover, I think we can seriously doubt if he was violent enough to perform the deeds of the Ripper. There are, as far as I know, no actual evidence on this point (please correct me if I'm wrong here). He seems to have been quite a lousy doctor, though..."
Again, I agree. The only thing that comes close to establishing any degree of "violence" as it relates to the murders is his collection of wombs, which I think would be strong circumstantial evidence if it were in conjunction with evidence of direct violence at some point. |
Glenn A
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, August 02, 2003 - 8:21 am: | |
Hi there, Randy.
Thank you for your views on the subject. Glad to see that you agree with most of my mine.
"The only thing that comes close to establishing any degree of "violence" as it relates to the murders is his collection of wombs, which I think would be strong circumstantial evidence if it were in conjunction with evidence of direct violence at some point. "
That is an interesting point -- it would indeed be useful to know under which circumstances Tumblety purchased his morbid collection. That would tell us quite a bit. By what we know so far, it would certainly be a mistake to characterize him as a sane person; there definitely was something seriously wrong with him and he had odd habits, to say the least -- if that makes him the Ripper, though, is highly questionable...
I feel I must consult more about what's written about Tumblety before I can draw any further conclusions about the good doctor (although I find him totally unlikely as the Ripper). Stewart Evans, who once "discovered" him and therefore became connected with him for a time, may have his opinions (if they still are valid) about Tumbletys involvement and other Ripper details that I don't agree with, but he's certainly a very nice and enyojable fellow and I just want to clarify -- in addition to my critizism -- that no shadow should fall upon his excellent skills as a researcher or on his reputation as an experienced Ripper historian and writer. We just analyses some of the facts differently, and -- when it comes down to it -- everything connected to the JTR case is (let's all just admit that!) only a matter of opinion, at least until we find unquestionable proof or evidence for theories in any direction (cheers, Stewart!).
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
 |
Karen M
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, August 01, 2003 - 2:09 pm: | |
Newbie here, but after years of interest in this "whodunnit", Tumblety could very well be the most likely.
First: Let's examine his "hatred" of women. Such hatred could, more than likely stem from childhood. He was one of three boys, the youngest of 11 children. Being in that position, dominated by 8 girls older than himself and regarded perhaps as the 'baby', this would have put him not in the limelight as a preferred child, but perhaps an afterthought. Adolescent girls are notorious for cruelty and perhaps (theory only) his older sisters were cruel to him.
On the flipside, they could have treated him like a baby, a preferred child, lavishing him with attention and devotion. He regards them as virtuous and heroic, idolizing these 8 girls in his life..icons of purity and love. Perhaps one of them fell from grace and created the first step towards his anger and disillusionment. Thus, by the time of his marriage to his wife and later discovering she is a prostitute, he is pushed to the edge of his hatred by this destruction of his mental image of women as virtuous and pure (like his sisters).
However, given the description of him as a child being dirty, ignorant and peddling pornography, it was not likely that he was coveted by his sisters. He was probably mistreated and subject to molestation by them. Abuse by his sisters and the world in general could have been the beginnings of his hatred.
Second: His "career" in medecine. He was reported to be "working at a small drug store run by a Dr. Lispenard, said to have 'carried on a medical business of a disreputable kind" A polite way of saying Abortionist? He had a collection of uteri in jars...this could at least conclude that he had a working knowledge of the female anatomy. Not to mention access to plenty of women. His collection of Uteri could be interpreted as a fascination for the female reproductive process...I.E. the source of the evil he perceives in women since his disillusionment began. If this fascination has taken over as an obsession to discover and destroy the source of the evil, he would have studied anatomy of women and seen to the ability to observe women from as close as he could get...i.e. as a physician. Whether or not he was actually a doctor is irrelevant. He had access to medical knowledge and practice.
Third: Homosexuality - perhaps he was a homosexual, a bisexual or had turned to that point to avoid his anger towards women. Remember that because of his sisters that adoration and love from his family was absent. The need for love thus came from men. The profiler from the FBI says that homosexuals would not kill women. Sure I don't doubt that now, but given the knowledge we have of homosexual behavior in MODERN times, this may not be true in the past. Realize that 120 years ago, homosexuality was regarded in a very different light. The idea that human nature stays constant through the years is false. Human nature reacts and develops through changes in environment and social interaction. The changes in society and society's perception overall has definately changed the way homosexuality is percieved. In the 1880's a man like Dr. T may have turned towards homosexuality out of a desperate reach for the feeling of adoration he once felt from women and no longer received. He feels guilt for his homosexuality, being that it is regarded as an abomination at the time whether common or not, thus fueling his further hatred for women for putting him in the position of feeling shame and guilt. He then takes all of that rage, knowledge and obsession and turns it towards the very types of women who created his rage: prostitutes. His homosexuality cannot replace the love he once felt for his wife who deceived him. If his sisters had indeed been cruel towards him instead of loving, homosexuality would be explored as a relacement for not having had love in his childhood. He turns towards men, not knowing what else to do. This is of course then, reactive instead of instilled tendency. In otherwords he was "driven" to homosexuality and based on our knowledge today of homosexuality being a trait and not a choice, Dr. T was not a homosexual as we know, but a very lost and confused and delusional soul. His relations with men were not based on sexual preference, but emotional need he felt he could not get from women any longer.
Fourth: The violence of the crimes are a definte sign of rage. A growing rage as each victim is savagely torn apart in varying degrees ending with Mary Kelly who was destroyed completely. He took his time with her. He had time to vent his rage and destroy his obsession. He pulled out her heart. Perhaps her looks or her demeanor was similar to his prostitute wife, thus enraging him further and the removal of her heart could, in his mind, end his hatred (of course he is delusional at this point and unable to determine reality from fantasy). Ted Bundy was clever in his hatred. He was charming and clever, but his final crime, the murders of the women in FL, was a culmination of rage without the cleverness of his previous victims murders. He displayed a desperation in these murders that would lead to his being caught. Back in the 1880's there was no technology to capture a killer, merely supposition which is evident by the amount of suspects from such varying backgrounds. Dr. T could have been eliminated as a suspect due to circumstances of the times. A bigotry against jews would have eliminated him as a suspect because the cops were looking towards jewish immigrants.
Fifth: Facts are facts and interestingly enough the victims we know were indicative of Jack the Ripper and not either copycats or coincidence, are
Mary Ann, Annie, Elizabeth, Catherine, and Mary... others that may have been JTR victims had the names: Annie, Ada, Emma, Martha, Annie, Rose, Elizabeth, Alice, Frances, and Carrie. Dr. T's sisters were named Jane and Bridget (twins), Alice, Margaret, Ann, Julia, Elizabeth, and Mary.
As a child, his elder sisters, the twins Jane and Bridget may have been already away from home working each day or married, if not, it is easy to assume that because they were twins, they had attachment to eachother and had no need to be involved in the lives of their other siblings (Thin). This would leave the others at home with their little brother. The similarity in names between some of the sisters and the victims might be a clue as to whom he hated the most. Annie, Elizabeth and Mary. Does anyone know his wife's name? Was she perhaps English? From the Whitechapel area? HMMMM
Dr. T. also travelled frequently in Europe and due to a massive influx of immigrants to the US, his travel may not have been noted as uncommon and he could have easily returned to Whitechapel several times before the final murder (I believe to be Mary Kelly due to her complete destruction). If he killed again after Mary Kelly it may have been because he had not rid himself of his anger as readily as he supposed after destroying Mary Kelly. I imagine that he felt each murder might have been the one to ease his torment and that by the time he got to Mary Kelly, he was so frustrated that he delved into complete destruction hoping that finally it could be over.
Finally: Immigrants, jews, butchers, and common men were suspects in these murders because it was believed that no englishman could have perpetrated such violence. That is because there was a belief that no gentleman could be so violent. Dr. T was not English, but he was perceived as a gentleman nonetheless because of his charm and outward appearance. His profile should include an outward appearance of neatness, a quality of dress and toilette that was seen as gentlemanly. I do not believe he wore tophats and fine clothes when he found his victims because he understood how prostitutes reacted to certain types. A gentleman in fine clothes would have been too suspicious for a prostitute and too much attention would have been drawn to a man of such quality in such a horrid environment. Dr. T probably dressed the part of a common man so as not to be noticed. I also believe that if he was JTR, he would have left England and returned to America feeling he had cleaned the slate and could live again having destroyed his obsession.
These are just observations which are refutable by anyone, but I do find it interesting that Dr. T was eliminated as a suspect...
|
R.J. Palmer
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 111
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 02, 2003 - 12:46 pm: | |
Although a number of American newspapers wrote that Tumblety was 'eliminated' as a suspect, this doesn't appear to be the case. The assumption might have been based on Tumblety being released from custody after his initial arrest. Prima facie, the Littlechild Letter suggests that he was never actually eliminated as a suspect. All the best. |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Detective Sergeant
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 99
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 02, 2003 - 2:09 pm: | |
Hi all,
I like the character of Dr. T., although I find
little to actually make him more than a curiosity
among the candidates as of yet. But I noticed
a comment before. When Dr. T. worked with Lispinard (whose name suggests a street in lower
Manhattan, and a site of a famous "unsolved" New
York Murder of 1799), his medical practice was
labled "dubious"). While that and the collection
of uteri suggest abortionist, "dubious" may refer
to his quack remedies (which were quite profitable - as witness the size of his estate).
Dr. T. is not the only murder suspect to be linked to selling quack pharmaceuticals. Dr. Hawley Harvey Crippen was a successful representative for the Munyon's Group of nostrums
in London when he was tried for the murder of his
wife in 1910, and twenty years earlier Carlyle
Harris had also gotten a job with Munyon's just
at the time he was poisoning Helen Potts.
Any medical degree (even a weak one, like Crippen's) was useful to patent medicine companies and their ilk.
Best wishes,
Jeff |
Glenn L Andersson
Police Constable
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 02, 2003 - 2:11 pm: | |
Hi Karen. Welcome to the discussion board.
Your thoughts are most interesting and impressive. And your conclusions could very well be right -- I won't rule anything out. I find especially your psycological analysis of Tumblety most interesting and rewarding.
However, I can't see any real evidence pointing at Tumblety as the prime suspect. It's all assumptions and some of it feels a bit far fetched.
The hatred of women. This is something I think we can deduct as being an important part of JTR:s character, it's true. The reasons for the killings may very well be bad experiences with women in the past, during childhood and other incidents. It is also a fact that many serial killers have been molested sexually or being victims of incest. But many of these factors doesen't make Tumblety the slightest unique -- a majority of them could certainly fit Jack the Ripper anyway, even if it were someone other than Tumblety. It is a good and valid psycological profile but it doesn't, on the other hand, necessarily make him Jack the Ripper. In 1888 he probably was'nt the only man with this kind of background and view of women.
Medical occupation. This is based on the assumption that Jack the Ripper should have shown some medical or surgical skills. I, and many others, seriously doubt that that is the case; the mutilations and removing of the organs appear in my opinion to have been done without any sign of care or elegance -- or even competence, for that matter. I agree, however, that Tumblety certainly were fascinated with the female anatomy and reproduction organs. What that tells us is another question...
The homosexuality. As you indicate yourself, one can hardly be "made" into a homosexual, but I see your point. There is also a possibility, I must admit, that Tumblety could have been sexually attracted to both men and women. Where that leaves us regarding Jack the Ripper's actions I'm not the one to tell, as I am no expert on that particular subject. However, your thoughts here are fruitful. I can, however, only refer to what we know about homosexual serial killers, and that is that they set out for the object of their sexual attraction -- men. But, we can not even be certain of Tumblety's homosexuality, and therefore we can't say if this detail is even relevant. We know too little of his sexuality to be able to draw any conclusions whatsoever.
Finally, I agree with your description of the Mary Kelly murder and the killer's growing rage. However, as Palmer states, Dr. T has never really been ruled out as a suspect.
Now, I find it highly unlikely that a killer like Jack the Ripper could be able to stop and being satisfied after "he had cleaned his slate". Murderers like this doesn't stop -- they go on until they are captured, dead or killed. He could hardly manage to "live again" and go back after the traumatic experience of the brutal murder in Miller's Court -- even if he moved away or not. And this is, I feel, the strongest argument against Tumblety being the suspect we're looking for.
Regarding Tumblety's appearance, we have as far as I know only one witness account that comes close to his description, namely the man with a big carrotty moustache talking to Mary Kelly some time before the murder. If Tumblety was our man, he most certainly would have been observed at several occasions, no matter what clothes he wore. But the main desciption we have of the individual who probably were Jack the Ripper doesen't fit Tumblety at all.
You could very well be right, though, in your assumptions, even though my intuition (and the facts, in my opinion) points in other directions.
Thank you for a well written and most interesting contribution, Karen.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Karen M
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, August 04, 2003 - 10:12 pm: | |
Glenn: I am by no means an expert, merely a researcher. I only wanted to point out that with such little information about JTR (and despite many experts and past evidence) no suspect should be discounted despite our technology and profiling of this modern era. My research involves society of several different eras of the 18th and 19th century including, but not wholly Victorian England and the US in the time of the industrial giants. It was a time in the US and Europe when the classes were distinguished by such extremes. In the US it is most predominant due to mass influx of immigrants of many nationalities. These classes created a great melting pot of backgrounds, but it is those with money and ambition who created the industrial age. Dr. T seems to have been on the outside looking in. His "profile" suggests a man with great self importance and marriage to a common prostitute could very well have sparked something evil...for all we know he went out in the back yard and kicked his dog every time he was enraged at his failings at respectability and wealth.
Didn't the killer remove organs in such a way that created the theory of a surgeon or a butcher as the Ripper? Even with the primitive crime detection of the times, a coroner of that era would have been able to see incisions that led him to believe this theory. A common man of that time...at least one in that neighborhood, would not have been able to read or write properly if at all. Many did not have such skill as was afforded the higher classes. It would thus be quite easy that an educated man could have taken himself to such a place and played a part to acheive his goal. He would have had to be unseen, a part of the crowd. A little soot on the face, a pea-coat, boots and a hat of some type would have blended any suspect into the streets of Whitechapel. Bundy, plaguing women of the college age, relatively innocent, living their lives as the daughters of families were his victims because of his diguise in demeanor, manner he cleverly hid his intentions behind charm. John Wayne Gacy disguised himself as a harmless clown to entice little boys into his list of victims. He was an educated man and regarded as an upstanding citizen of his community. Gacy was a homosexual serial killer of young boys, but the femininity of a young boy is what attracts the pedophile...once they are grown, the pedophile loses interest.
JTR would not have had to hide behind charm, but a few coins, a grungy appearance of a lower class man would have given him his victims easily since they were there to make money from any one with a coin. I say the killer blended well by hiding education, a higher (maybe not much higher) class status and most importantly hiding his appearance like a chameleon.
I also think that at some time by one or more of his victims, he was known to them. He was perhaps a repeat customer(maybe once or twice before). By the time Mary Kelly was selected as the next victim, I beleive she would not have made herself a target by taking on customers she did not know. All of Whitechapel was wary of strangers and prostitutes most certainly. A stranger, appearing out of the dark would have frightened her.
Whoever was JTR, I do not believe him to be a common, uneducated man, but perhaps not a man of the upper classes. If an immigrant, in his own country, he would have been respectable and somewhat schooled... |
Glenn L Andersson
Sergeant
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 31
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 06, 2003 - 9:46 pm: | |
Hi Karen.
OK, here we go.
As I pointed out, I'm not ruling anybody out (I seem to have to repeat this until I'm blue in the face), I'm merely saying what I think is most probable. I wouldn't commit intellectual suicide by claiming I absolutely knew who the real identity of the Ripper was or not.
Now, you are probably correct in your assumption that Tumblety would have been on the "outside looking in" regarding being a part of the wealthy society, but he wasn't the only one in that situation. His self-importance and frustration after having married a prostitute could very well be accurat descriptions of him -- but again, these are speculations, not proof of him being Jack the Ripper. I don't think Dr T was that unique for his time in general, even though he maybe was more eccentric than most (and also managed to get spotted by the police a number of times for various reasons). But from that to claim that he would be JTR, feels a bit uncertain. There just isn't enough facts to comfirm this, even though he just as well could have been JTR -- and that, unfortunately, goes for all the subjects as well.
"Didn't the killer remove organs in such a way that created the theory of a surgeon or a butcher as the Ripper?"
Actually -- not necessarily! We can't be certain of that either -- even the post-mortem specialists at the time didn't agree on this point and still today it's a matter of great controversy. I, and some others in the field (even if I by no means are an medical expert), mean that there are absolutely no signs of medical or surgical knowledge whatsoever. The mutilations have more in common, in my opinion, with butchering than any organized attempt to dissect the bodies. The fact that trophies were collected could just mean that he took whatever organ he came across -- in some cases it was wombs, in others it was the liver or -- maybe -- the heart. It doesn't have to be that significant or mean that he knew what he was looking for -- and I also think we should be careful about reading something symbolic into his early focusing on the wombs. So I don't fell he would need any certain "skills", not more than an ordinary butcher, fisherman, bootmaker or hairdresser etc.
Yes, he could have disguised himself, I therefore in my earlier message said that the clothes may not be that important. His grand moustasches, though, would have made him stand out from the crowd. And those he wouldn't be able to hide; Dr. T wouldn't manage to slip away without anybody recognizing or remembering him, I'm sure of that.
"Gacy was a homosexual serial killer of young boys, but the femininity of a young boy is what attracts the pedophile...once they are grown, the pedophile loses interest."
Yes, Karen, but it's still boys, not girls or women. It is not the same. And JTR wasn't a child abuser (as far as we know) -- he set out for female prostitutes.
"Whoever was JTR, I do not believe him to be a common, uneducated man, but perhaps not a man of the upper classes. If an immigrant, in his own country, he would have been respectable and somewhat schooled..."
I for my part belive that he was a resident of Whitechapel -- his easy escapes could indicate this. And a common man -- I don't think we'll ever fully agree on this. The people in Whitechapel were more or less poor, and those who immigrated to US and Britain during the 19th century (which is also my period of study) were mainly poor starving farmers, prostitutes who wanted to start a new life in another country (the swede Liz Stride is such an example) or semi-poor labourers from the over-crowded cities (unfortunately they instead found themselves in an even worse situation). Hardly that much educated middle-class.
I also think -- even though I am an animal lover and consider violence towards these innocent creatures among the worst crimes there is -- that kicking a dog doesn't make him Jack the Ripper. I think the profilers are right, though, when they claim that JTR probably started his "career" in his teens with torturing animals -- starting fires also usually indicates a dangerous streak.
I, however, don't find it impossible at all that he was in fact a repeat customer, he could very well have been -- you're right -- but I don't agree with your following statement:
"I also think that at some time by one or more of his victims, he was known to them. He was perhaps a repeat customer(maybe once or twice before). By the time Mary Kelly was selected as the next victim, I beleive she would not have made herself a target by taking on customers she did not know. All of Whitechapel was wary of strangers and prostitutes most certainly. A stranger, appearing out of the dark would have frightened her."
I have studied the lives of prostitutes around the time of 1900 for some years now (and crimes in relation to them) and it is my beief that they didn't have any choice to pick among their customers at all. They had to work, and most of them evidently did in this case, in spite of a killer being loose. The other alternative was to sleep out in the street, if you couldn't find the money for a bed. They certainly were afraid -- we have accounts for that from Liz Stride and others -- but they couldn't afford to stay off the street just the same -- or be that particular picky.
I may not believe Tumblety being the most likely candidate for a suspect. But I wouldn't dare to rule him (or most of the others) out completely -- we just simply don't know enough to be able to do that.
P.S. I am no expert either, merely an amateur in this particular field.
All the best. 
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 240
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 18, 2003 - 6:21 am: | |
Hi All
I just thought I would add my thoughts on Tumblety as a suspect:
-Too tall
-Too old
-Too Flamboyant
-Too Gay (perhaps it is better to say wrong sexual orientatation, considering JTRs choice of victims.)
-Too prone to attract attention to himself
- An obvious loon that even a half drunken, desperate prostitute would have run from at the height of the scare.
I hate to be so dismissive of a contemporary suspect but I just don't see a viable case against him.
The discovery of the Littlechild letter was nevertheless, still a great feat of detective work.
All The Best
Gary |
Richard Lawrence
Police Constable
Username: Rl0919
Post Number: 6
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 19, 2003 - 1:07 am: | |
Gary,
Contra some of your points:
- Modern descriptions of Tumblety make him sound rather colorful, but his primary occupation appears to have been that of a con man, passing himself off as a doctor and such. When trying to impress people at a party, a boisterous and boastful attitude might have been an appropriate guise. But that doesn't mean it was anything more than a guise, and doesn't preclude him adopting a more cautious, restrained manner in other settings. So I don't see arguments about him being "flamboyant" or a "loon" as being entirely convincing.
- The homosexuality theory is unproven. I'll grant that the murders appear to have a sexual motive, based on what we know about similar crimes in more recent times. But even if he had male partners, Tumblety could just as well have been a bisexual.
- Age and height comparisons are based on witness testimony, which is subject to a considerable margin of error. The clearest witness descriptions are from Schwartz, who may not have even seen JtR (if Stride was killed by someone else, which is almost certainly the case if JtR really was Tumblety), and from Hutchinson, who also may not have seen JtR (if Kelly was killed by someone other than JtR or if she was killed later in the evening after the departure of the client supposedly witnessed by Hutchinson) and who may well have been lying. The other witness ids are much more vague.
On this last point, age is the harder of the two elements for a witness to accurately guage. Height would be a better grounds for exclusion.
|
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 247
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 19, 2003 - 2:59 am: | |
Hi Richard
I feel Chapman's killer was seen and depicted as being only a little over Chapman in height. I believe with a good deal of confidence that Lawende saw JTR with Kate. One problem with my belief that Stride was not a victim is that the man Schwartz saw sounds a lot like the man also seen with Eddowes. But, obviously I can't have it both ways. I believe as you indicate that Hutchinson was lying to cover up his own odd actions on the night of MJK's murder.
I will give your other points some consideration after I get some rest as I have been up most of the night.
All The Best
Gary |
Richard Lawrence
Police Constable
Username: Rl0919
Post Number: 8
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 19, 2003 - 8:30 pm: | |
Gary,
I don't doubt that Lawende saw JtR. The timing is just too close to plausibly argue otherwise. And I do think that the height issue is a troubling item for Tumblety. But I'm reluctant to place too much burden on witness testimony. It's easy enough for a person in passing to tell a man from a woman, or recognize basic coloration for clothes, skin and hair. But I have less confidence beyond that. Would Lawende have really noticed if the man was stooping a bit, perhaps to more easily converse with the woman? Or if the woman was wearing raised shoes? (Is there any inventory recorded on that? I don't recall at the moment and I'm not near any reference books.)
I certainly wouldn't argue that there is a rock solid case against Tumblety, but in my mind he is one of the more plausible candidates (which ain't saying that much!).
|
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 250
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 19, 2003 - 10:57 pm: | |
Hi Richard
I have been reading Chris Scott's descriptions of Dr T. and they range from 5'-11" to 6'-4". If we settle at 6' that still puts him a good 5" taller than the man I believe we are looking for.
There is no doubt about the fact that witness descriptions are unreliable, but I think it would be hard to be that far off on the height.
I will try not to be as flippant in my treatent of a serious contemmporary suspect in the future.
All The Best
Gary |
Gareth Thomas Johns
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 02, 2003 - 8:26 am: | |
Hello, A Newbie here.
"Dr" Francis Tumbelty is in my mind is certainly a fore runner in the "Jack the ripper" murders.
Some of the most damning evidence to me (that has not been submitted as much as most other evidence) is the two rings taken by the murder of Mary Ann Nichols, These were cheap costume rings.
The nuns who looked after tumbelty in his last days documented his possessions after he expired.
Listed among all his finery and expensive jewellery, He was wearing 2 cheap looking costume rings together worth less than three dollars.
This to me is strange as tumbelty was a VERY vain dresser, Were these rings a souvenir of his time in whitechapel ?. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 305
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 02, 2003 - 11:28 am: | |
Hi Gareth,
Could be. But I believe Tumblety was tall enough to have towered above his victims, so none of his encounters with them can have been witnessed, whether he charmed the women with conversation first, or went straight for the throat when their previous male companions had taken their leave.
For me, at only 5ft 1 and a half, Tumblety would be literally a bit too much of a stretch. 
Love,
Caz
|
Sherlock Holmes
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 02, 2003 - 3:25 pm: | |
Too tall to be the ripper?. Maybe but I think the eye witnesses were ANYTHING BUT reliable. And I do believe there is one eye witness account that states a man "about 5'11". But this aside if the eye witness accounts were any good, Why wasnt the Ripper caught on these accounts?. And further more there is evidence the the mysterious Batty st lodger was indeed the good Dr.T. And in that case as the mysterious lodger he may well have been in the picture alot longer than we think.
The above is like every thing on the matter in question. It is a theory.
Thank you |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
