|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Chris Scott
Sergeant
Username: Chris
Post Number: 28
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 13, 2003 - 9:02 am: |       |
I have just rewatched the documentary which in the Uk is simply entitled "The Whitechapel Murders", narrated by David Jessell which is about the Tumblety theory, the Littlechild letter etc.
One part of the program is a panning shot of the offical court record of Tumblety's indecency hearing and I thought there may be some who did not know the details. The record shows as follows:
Date received into custody: 7 November 1888
Name : Francis Tumblety
Age: 56
Occupation: Physician
There is then an official named - J.L.Hannay Esq. (Marlborough Street Police Court) - but as that column heading is not shown I am not entirely sure in what capacity he is included.
Charged with:
Committing an act of gross indecency with: John Doughty, Arthur Brice, Albert Fisher and James Crowley.
(I will be seeing if I can find anything out about these.)
Those are the bare details but one further detail intrigued me. The date of being received into custody is clearly given as 7 November 1888. However, after Tumblety's name in the court records it says this: "bailed 16 November 1888".
Now under the UK legal system (and I assume it is the same in the US) the point at which bail is arranged is the point in time at which freedom is regained. If that is the case, then the logical interpretation of the court record is that Tumblety was in custody from 7 November until 16 November 1888. If that were the case the implication is obvious in the Kelly was murdered on 9th.
Any comments would be very welcome on this |
Chris Scott
Sergeant
Username: Chris
Post Number: 29
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 13, 2003 - 9:22 am: | |
I have done three screen captures from the court record mentioned above which show
The date received into custody
The details of the charges
The name (and bail detials which I mentioned above)
CS
 |
Brian W. Schoeneman
Detective Sergeant
Username: Deltaxi65
Post Number: 118
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 13, 2003 - 12:28 pm: | |
Chris,
Wow...that's an excellent find.
Although I'm sure that Stewart knows about this, I wonder what the explanation would be. Clearly, if he was locked in one of the Police Courts, he couldn't have killed MJK.
This opens up a lot of questions in my mind, because I don't recall seeing this before.
B |
Kevin Braun
Sergeant
Username: Kbraun
Post Number: 35
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 13, 2003 - 12:59 pm: | |
Hi Chris and Brian,
Casebook, Suspects, Francis Tumblety
"Francis Tumblety returned to Liverpool in June of 1888, and once again found himself at odds with the police. He was arrested on November 7th, 1888 on charges of gross indecency and indecent assault with force and arms against four men between July 27th and November 2. These eight charges were euphemisms for homosexual activities. Tumblety was then charged on suspicion of the Whitechapel murders on the 12th (suggested he was free to kill Kelly between the 7th and 12th). Tumblety was bailed on November 16th. A hearing was held on November 20th at the Old Bailey, and the trial postponed until December 10th. Tumblety then fled to France under the alias ‘Frank Townsend’ on the 24th, and from there took the steamer La Bretagne to New York City".
Take care,
Kevin |
John Savage
Sergeant
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 11
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 13, 2003 - 2:21 pm: | |
Chris,
If someone were arrested today on a charge of gross indecency, they would probably be bailed that day until a later date, to either reappear at a police station or magistrates court at a later date whene they would face trial.
I am not sure if this was the practice in 1888, but no doubt Steewart Evans would know.
Regards,
John Savage |
John Savage
Sergeant
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 12
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 13, 2003 - 2:22 pm: | |
Chris,
If someone were arrested today on a charge of gross indecency, they would probably be bailed that day until a later date, to either reappear at a police station or magistrates court at a later date whene they would face trial.
I am not sure if this was the practice in 1888, but no doubt Stewart Evans would know.
Regards,
John Savage |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Detective Sergeant
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 98
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 13, 2003 - 3:51 pm: | |
Hi,
I believe although Tumblety was a odd character, there is no evidence what so ever to incriminate him in the whitechapel murders,his homosexual behaviour would have classed him as sexually insane at that period, and he may have been question about his whereabouts during the relevant dates.
The man was described as being an exceptionly tall man about 6ft 4inches , and aged 56 years, can any one tell me about any witness seeing somebody of that stature in the area , he would be a giant among men at that period.
I consider Tumblety , as no more then a character that was around at the time, I think our killer is much simplier then this suspect...
Richard. |
Wolf Vanderlinden
Police Constable
Username: Wolf
Post Number: 7
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 13, 2003 - 4:08 pm: | |
Far be it for me to speak for Stewart Evans but Stewart has addressed this question more than once here on the boards. I hope that I am not out of line by posting Stewart's post of Sunday, 17 March 2002 on this very subject.
"Tumblety was granted bail at the Marlborough Street Magistrates Court on 16 November by the Magistrate James L. Hannay. This was against a surety of $1,500.
Tumblety was arrested on 7 November for the offence(s) of gross indecency, a misdemeanor. It would follow that he would receive police bail, whilst evidence was gathered for the offences to be charged. Police bail is usually granted for 7 days and the offender then returns to the police station where he is re-arrested for the initial offence when he surrenders to the bail, or if he is re-arrested, on a warrant, for not answering that bail. We do not know exactly what happened as none of the police or court records appear to have survived.
Despite the fact that the bail may not have been answered, the offence was still a minor one, he probably had no previous convictions, and the bail sum set was very high (which would indicate a wish for him to either be unable to meet the sum or to ensure that he would forfeit a large amount if bail was not answered)."
Wolf. |
AP Wolf
Detective Sergeant
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 109
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 13, 2003 - 4:56 pm: | |
Complicated situation.
I do know that within the legal system when applied to bail or remand, days can be lost and found. I believe this also applies to Police bail and custody.
In other words days incurred at original arrest with time spent in cells can be taken into account when granting bail or other conditions, and it would not be unusual for a day - or even more - to disappear between arrest, bail and eventual sentencing, depending of course on individual circumstances.
When a judge passes sentence he will attempt to be aware of the time spent in police custody, bail conditions imposed etc. but very often is not and mistakes are commonly made.
Somewhere I'm sure also is some kind of funny rule that applies to all custody, bail or sentencing conditions where a day is in fact written off. |
Kevin Braun
Sergeant
Username: Kbraun
Post Number: 36
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 13, 2003 - 5:05 pm: | |
"Tumblety is often rejected because many researchers have the impression that he was in jail at the time of Kelly's death. This is NOT true. He was arrested on 7th November on a gross indecency charge, a misdemeanour which means he would have been granted police bail until the time of the next magistsrates sitting (16th). He was therefore on the streets from 7th until he was re-arrested on 14th, and re-bailed on the 16th. He was therefore around at the time of the Millers Court glut". ("A Theory on Francis Tumblety" Scott Hannaford, Casebook, Dissertations)
I think 5'11" - 6'00 is more like it. Chris George where are you? See an old link http://www.citypaper.com/2002-04-10/charmed.html
Take care,
Kevin |
Jon Smyth
Sergeant
Username: Jon
Post Number: 18
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 13, 2003 - 5:13 pm: | |
In continuation of Wolf's poste above....
Following Stewarts poste (quoted) I asked for his opinion on a press report from the New York Times.
The reason being was that the 'Times' released a story which on face value appeared to indicate that Stewarts presumption of release on police bail may not have applied in this case.
New York Times
November 19, 1888
THE SAME TUMBLETY
"His Arrest in London not His First Experience."
The Dr. Tumblety who was arrested in London a few days ago on suspicion of complicity in the Whitechapel murders, and who when proved innocent of that charge was held for trial in the Central Criminal Court under the special law covering the offenses disclosed in the late "Modern Babylon" scandal, will be remembered by any number of Brooklynites and New-Yorkers as Dr. Blackburn, the Indian herb doctor....
My question was.....was he "held" or not?
Surely, a suspect charged with being involved in the whitechapel murders (the most hunted man in the world) would never be released on any bail of anykind.
Stewarts response, if my memory serves me, was that he thought the press report was in error.
Does my point come through?
If he was really arrested only for minor crimes, then he may have made bail, therefore the police never suspected his complicity in the murders.
However, if he was arrested in connection with the crimes, he would never have been given bail.
To the best of my memory, the British press never reported Tumblety as involved in the murders. Any connection of this kind was only written about in America/Canada.
I agree that often American press reports contain more mistakes than the British ones, but as we are only dealing with opinions here, it does leave Tumblety's availability open to question.
Regards, Jon
|
AP Wolf
Detective Sergeant
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 110
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 13, 2003 - 5:28 pm: | |
Chris
I've looked at this again and the replies.
There is no way in the age of Oscar Wilde that gross indecency charges of a homosexual nature would be viewed by the police or the courts as a 'misdemeanour'. They were very, very serious offences and I'm actually surprised that bail was granted at all.
Regardless of former opinion it is my own that bail would have only been granted when the prisoner was released from custody.
The normal course of events would be that following the arrest the person would be held in 'remand' until his next scheduled appearance at court where he might or might not be released on bail.
But definitely the person would have been held in remand until bail was granted.
The police on their own did not have the power to 'bail' somebody without the authority and approval of a court of law. All the police would have had was a 'remand' or 'bail' on first court appearance of the person. Yes, the person may have been bailed later, but only - and I stress this - if he had been in remand.
|
Scott Medine
Sergeant
Username: Sem
Post Number: 43
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 13, 2003 - 10:42 pm: | |
ESQ. is Esquire, a title used by attorneys. So an attorney may have been present. This attorney could have been prosecutor or defense. In either case, if one is present usually the other is there also, especially if the attorney present is a defense attorney. The release of Tumblety may have been a deal reached between both sides or it may have been the prosecutor waving jail time for a misdemeanor, which is what I believe may have happened.
Peace,
Scott |
John Savage
Sergeant
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 13
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 14, 2003 - 5:16 pm: | |
A.P. Wolf - Misdemeanor
Section Xl (the Labouchere Amendment) of The Criminal Law Ammendment Act, 1885, under which Lord Arthur Somerset was said to be liable, reads: "Any male person who, in public or private, commits, or is a party to the commision of, or procures or attempts to procure the commision by any male person, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and being convicted thereof shall be liable at the discretion of the court to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years, with or without hard labour."
The above is taken from "The Cleveland Street Affair" by Lewis Chester, David Leitch and Colin Simpson. (page 36)
Hope this helps
John Savage |
AP Wolf
Detective Sergeant
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 114
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 15, 2003 - 1:12 pm: | |
John (Savage)
Got me there.
Not being any sort of expert on homosexual crime of any nature I was going with the modern meaning of the word:
'a non-indictable offence, a minor wrongdoing'.
But I stand corrected by a wiser source.
I thank you kindly. |
Noel Charles Auger
Police Constable
Username: Seecomber
Post Number: 2
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 25, 2003 - 3:12 pm: | |
The abbreviation Esq, (Esquire) was and still is common in England. It is a courtesy title(Like Mr.) and its use is not restricted to lawers or `attorneys'. In the instace quoted,Hannay was the Magistrate and would not normally have been a party to any legal`bargaining' |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Sergeant
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 28
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 27, 2003 - 8:36 pm: | |
Excuse me everyone. Question on procedure and
information here. If somebody goes out on bail
today, he or she usually has friends and family
put up the bail, or they get a bail bondsmen to
do so (after giving security to said person). Now
in November 1888, somebody was surety for bailing
Dr. Tumblety. Does anyone know who this was?
Was it his friend Hall Caine, perhaps?
By the way, although I feel it is just a coincidence, I recently saw a two volume selection
of the correspondence of Lewis Carroll on sale at
the Argosy Bookstore in Manhattan (on East 59th
Street, off Lexington Avenue). In November 1888,
Dr. Dodgson/"Carroll" was in communication with
Hall Caine's brother, who was a magazine and book
editor. Mr. Caine (the editor/brother) was putting together an anthology of British verse, and was asking permission for some of Dr.Dodgson/
"Carroll"'s verses. Eventually two poems (one,
"THE WALRUS AND THE CARPENTER") were included in
the volumes, which came out in 1890 or 1891.
Jeff |
John Savage
Sergeant
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 17
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 27, 2003 - 8:57 pm: | |
Jeffrey
The system today is that someone may be given bail in their own recognecance, to re appear at a court or police station at a later date.
I believe that may have been the case in 1888, but honestly I am not sure.
Regards,
John Savage |
Chris Scott
Inspector
Username: Chris
Post Number: 267
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 22, 2003 - 11:28 am: | |
I have done a search on the four names mentioned on the Tumblety charge street in the 1891 census. The limiting factor was the age group to look at. Knowing Tumblety's penchant for good looking young men, and allowing for the 3 year gap between the charge and the census, I have looked initially at individuals in the early to mid 20 age range. Certain areas (Islington and Woolwich etc) recur for more than one name group and interestingly one of the individuals is a young medical student.....
Tumblety Charge - 1891 Census
Tumblety was taken into custody on 7 November 1888 and charged with committing an indecent act with four individuals. Initials search lists possibles below:
Arthur Brice:
Aged 21 - Butcher - Battersea
Aged 24 - Laundryman- West Hackney
Aged 24 - Carsh? - Mayfair
Aged 20 - Medical Student - Brixton
Aged 21 - Clerk - Hackney
Aged 22 - Commercial clerk - Stoke Newington
John Doughty:
Aged 22 - Footman - Kensington
Aged 26 - Boiler maker - Poplar
Aged 27 - Tanner - Kent Road
Aged 18 - General labourer - Woolwich
Aged 28 - Assistant licensed victualler - Clapham
Aged 31 - Shipowners clerk - Belgravia
Albert Fisher:
Aged 27 - Tailor - Hammersmith
Aged 24 - Railway Park - Islington
Aged 22 - Pastrycook shop's porter - St Giles North
Aged 27 - Tailors assistant - Westminster
Aged 20 - Grocers assistant - Marylebone
Aged 28 - Sorter - Islington
Aged 24 - Wood engraver - Wandsworth
Aged 24 - L/Cpl Army Service Corps - Woolwich
Aged 22 - Carman/Groom - Chelsea
Aged 22 - Compositor - Kensington
Aged 22 - Shop assistant - Islington
Aged 22 - No occupation shown - Hackney
James Crowley:
Aged 28 - Painter and decorator - Chelsea
Aged 23 - Labourer - Islington
Aged 26 - Porter - Rotherhithe
Aged 27 - Carmen - Saffron Hill
Aged 22 - Postman - St Giles North
|
John Savage
Sergeant
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 45
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 23, 2003 - 5:03 am: | |
Hi Chris,
Do you know if the charge sheet says were the offence of gross indecency happened, it may help to narrow down the above listed people, and perhaps tell us a little more of were abouts Tumbelty was in London.
Regards,
John Savage |
Chris Scott
Inspector
Username: Chris
Post Number: 268
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 23, 2003 - 7:08 am: | |
Hi John
The record I have seen (pics above in second post in the thread) don't give details of where the alleged offences took place Im afraid
Chris
|
Martin Fido
Sergeant
Username: Fido
Post Number: 28
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 23, 2003 - 10:12 am: | |
Hi all!
I've always been dubious about Stewart's "police bail" argument, as I don't know the evidence for its having been common practice in 1888. Does anyone know just when and with what provisos "police bail" was introduced into the Met Police Offices?
In general I agree with A.P.Wolf that sodomy was held a pretty heinous crime in the 1880s, and unlikely to be followed by casual bail on the chargee's own recognizances: it had only recently ceased to be a capital offence (and I know of at least one early 19th century case in which the defendant actually was hanged for homosexual practices).
On another topic, "Esq" is one of those British oddities with supposed class limitations. Strictly applied, it should be used only by the landed gentry (for which reason the precisian Evelyn Waugh always objected to its being applied to him). Looser variants allowed it to be offered to sons of armigerous families, Masters of Arts of the ancient universities, officers in His/Her Majesty's services, and those who had been called to the bar. Up to the 1970s I used it fairly routinely in addressing envelopes, and received a good deal of mail so addressed to me, which led a post delivery person in Barbados to ask "What's this Esq, and where does this go?" to which my secretary replied, "Oh, that's just some English thing they put after their names. Put it in Mr Fido's box."
All the best,
martin F |
John Savage
Sergeant
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 46
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 23, 2003 - 8:58 pm: | |
Martin,
In law and in practice there is a difference between sodomy and gross indecency. Tumblety was charged with gross indecency ( an offence which I beleive first came about with the Labouchere Amendment) which is of course a lesser offence.
Regards,
John Savage |
R.J. Palmer
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 85
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 23, 2003 - 10:22 pm: | |
Martin--Just to throw out a point for the opposition: I recall A.P.'s comments about sodomy & the law quite well, but is it really the case that Wilde was rigorously prosecuted? I believe it was the biographer Richard Ellmann that suggested that Wilde was in fact given every opportunity to flee to France, as the authorities were quite keen on avoiding a public spectacle. Wilde thought (foolishly or heroically) that he could fight the charges, and this forced the issue.
As Tumblety was booked in Marlborough Street Police Court, wouldn't this suggest that the offenses took place in the West End? I'd be surprised if the four weren't boy prostitutes.... |
Valerie S
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, June 23, 2003 - 6:05 pm: | |
Hi all!
Does anybody else find it odd that four men brought charges against Tumblety at the same time? I just don't see many scenarios that would bring about 4 unwanted homosexual avances around the same time. Either it must have been one hell of a party , or Tumblety was put into a postition where he was alone with each of these men and made sexual advances and somehow they all got together and reallised they weren't alone. I also wonder how embarassing it must have been for a man to go to the police and say they had been raped by another man at that time. Even today it takes a lot of guts, back then it must have taken guts of steel.
These four men had to be connected somehow. Co-workers, classmates maybe? From what I've read about Tumblety, he didn't hang out with low-class people. He stuck to the upper-crust of society. I think all four of these men were likely from well-to-do families.
Valerie |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
