Commendations - Challenge!

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

It could be Doldon.

The Times, 18th January 1888—



Regards,

Simon

[Monty]

Alas no Simon,

Your man is the one I'm refering to, the one who acccomapnied White to Berner Street in the aftermath of the Stride murder.

The tother Dolden is the one mentioned on the Police Order, he is a constable of E division Holborn.

Unless your man was demoted since the Stride murder of course.

Monty

[Robert]

Hi Monty

Bit puzzled here. The PC of the E division is also CID H.

[Monty]

Highly unlikely Robert,

I just wasn't ruling out thee possibility.

Monty

[David Orsam]

This is the thread that will not die!

Just on the location point raised by Michael. I was originally going to post this challenge in the Andrews thread, where the link between the first four commendations and Tumblety was mentioned, but felt it needed its own thread. As the sole purpose of this exercise is to establish whether or not the four commendations relate to the arrest of Tumblety, it seemed to me that this was the right place to create the thread. Admittedly, the thread has taken an unexpected turn, in that we now have to look at the procedure relating to the commendations, and perhaps the Police Procedure board would be more suited but still, even if he is not mentioned, it is really all about Tumblety. I don't mind if the thread is moved though.

Just to add that I have already made significant progress on understanding these commendations from documents I already hold, but I need to check a few things and don't want to drip feed bits of info so would rather post again when I have everything bottomed out. One good thing is that "commendations" does not, after all, seem to be an inappropriate word to use but I will post more about this aspect in due course.

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

Tumblety was arrested [received into custody] on 7th November 1888.

What leads you to believe the arrests on 4th November 1888, as referred to in the list of commendations, had anything to do with him?

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

Tumblety was arrested [received into custody] on 7th November 1888.

What leads you to believe the arrests on 4th November 1888, as referred to in the list of commendations, had anything to do with him?

Hi Simon, I'm really glad you have kept this thread alive because I am bursting with information which I couldn't possibly keep to myself for two weeks but more of that anon.

Your question is strange to me because it suggests that I believe anything about these commendations. I'm just trying to work out what they were about. However, you know as well as I do that some newspapers reported that Tumblety was originally arrested on suspicion of the Whitechapel murders but released due to lack of evidence and then arrested again on a holding charge of gross indecency. We know that he was arrested on the latter charge of gross indecency on 7 November. What I am investigating is the possibility that the commendations related to the prior arrest for the murders, which could have been on 4 November (or earlier). I have already said in the Andrews thread that this would be a bit strange - why commend officers for an arrest that never led to a conviction? - but that's what I'm trying to establish one way or another.

I would be extremely happy if we can establish that the commendations related to something other than Tumblety, as long as we can work out what they DID relate to and thus end the mystery.

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

The newspaper reports variously dated Tumblety's "Ripper" arrest as 16th, 17, 18th and 19th November, after which they nabbed him on the indecent behaviour charges.

All of which we happen to know is baloney.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

Hold on a moment Simon, you're conflating a number of different reports here. I'm referring to the San Francisco Chronicle of 18 November (containing a report dated 17 November) which does NOT state the date of arrest but says of Tumblety (wrongly referred to as Kumblety):

"The police could not hold him on suspicion of the Whitechapel crimes, but he will be committed for trial at the Central Criminal Court under the special law passed soon after the Modern Babylon exposures"

As Mike has rightly pointed out, this is 100% accurate in the sense that we know for a fact that a few days earlier Tumblety had indeed been committed for trial at the Central Criminal Court under the Criminal Law Amendment Act. The reporter who filed that story was, therefore, undoubtedly well informed.

For that reason, there is a reasonable ground for saying that Tumblety had previously been arrested on suspicion of the Whitechapel murders. And that arrest could have been on 4 November or earlier.

That's really all I'm saying.

[David Orsam]

Right, well, I believe I have solved the Dolden mystery. What follows is, I think, rather interesting.

On Monday 12 November, a man called George Bartlett was arrested by Detective Inspector Reid in Whitechapel. The Times of Wednesday 14 November 1888 carried the following report of a hearing at Worship Street Police Court on Tuesday 13 November:

"AT WORSHIP STREET, George Bartlett, described as a jeweller, with no fixed abode, was charged with the unlawful possession of a silver sceptre and other articles supposed to have been stolen. Detective Inspector Reid, H Division, deposed that on the previous night, in Spitalfields, his attention was drawn to the prisoner who was carrying a black shiny bag (produced). In appearance he somewhat answered the description circulated of a man who had been seen in the neighbourhood of the recent murders. He was followed and in Brick-lane stopped and requested to give some account of himself, particularly as to what he had got in the bag. He displayed great objection to exhibit the contents, and the police found the bag secured with a padlock. The man was removed to the station in Commercial-street and there produced the key of the bag. On opening it, various articles were seen, consisting of handkerchiefs, a book, a screw driver, and a silver staff, described as a sceptre, in question, but no knives. In a back pocket of the prisoner’s trousers there was also found a shell, silver mounted. The prisoner was charged with unlawful possession, but during Tuesday it was found that the Church of Old St Pancras had been broken into and the articles, with others – one stated to be a cross given by the Duke of York – carried off. On the application of the inspector the prisoner was given back into custody to be charged at Clerkenwell with sacrilege. The magistrate (Mr. Montagu Williams Q.C.) commended the inspector for the “intelligence and activity” he had shown in the capture."

Note the interesting point that Bartlett was originally suspected of being Jack the Ripper! (a Google search reveals a number of mentions of his arrest in relation to the case.)

Bartlett was then brought to Bow Street Police Court on Wednesday 14 November. Lloyds Weekly News of 18 November carried the following report:

"BOW STREET
CHARGE OF SACRILEGE IN ST PANCRAS
George Bartlett, aged 36, described as a jeweller, living in a lodging house in Osborne-place, Spitalfields, was charged with sacrilegiously breaking and entering the parish church of St. Pancras, and stealing a silver mace, a shell, a hair brush, two keys, a gold pen in a morocco case, and some stamps, also a black bag, and other property.....Detective-inspector Reid, of the H Division, deposed that at half-past nine on Monday last he, accompanied by Detective Dalbard, stopped the prisoner in Brick-lane, Whitechapel. At the time he was carrying a black bag, and witness asked what it contained. He replied "Two books and a piece of bread." Witness took him to the police station where he was asked for the key of the bag, which was locked. He said it was under his pillow at the lodging house. It was not found there, and prisoner afterwards, produced it from his trowsers (sic) pockets. The bag was opened and the mace and the other articles mentioned were found. He said that he had bought them from a man in "the lane." He could not give the man's name and address, but said the mace was silver, and "that was good enough for him." At Worship-street he was brought up and discharged, but taken into custody again. Two keys of the outer gates of the church were found in the prisoner's possession. He was committed for trial."

As you can see, the LWN report says that Reid was "accompanied by Detective Dalbard" but this is an error for Dolden. I know this because the Police Orders for Tuesday 4 December 1888 state the following:

"The Commissioner has received with satisfaction a letter from the Rev. H.L. Paget, Vicar of St Pancras, commending Inspector (C.I.D.) Reid and P.C. (C.I.D.) Dolden for the skill and promptitude they displayed in arresting a man for sacrilege."

According to the Old Bailey calendar (where Bartlett is the name immediately above Tumblety), Bartlett was committed to the Central Criminal Court on 14 November 1888. But it is worth noting that the Old Bailey Calendar also gives a date of 14 November under the "When received into Custody" column. This corresponds with the LWN report that Bartlett was discharged but taken into custody again. Yet we know from the Times report of 14 November that Bartlett had been arrested by Reid on 12 November. Thus, the custody date in the Old Bailey calendar is not necessarily the date of the arrest!!!

If one goes to the Old Bailey website, one sees that George Bartlett was tried not of sacrilege but of "theft from a specified place, 19 November 1888". (He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to five years penal servitude.) However, when one looks at the original image, it can be seen that he was sentenced on 20 November 1888. The date of 19 November presumably relates to the Old Bailey session or the true bill.

Now, as we can see from the Commendations and Rewards section in the Police Orders of 27 November 1888, the date given next to Reid and Dolden is "19th inst", i.e. 19 November 1888. I have absolutely no doubt that the reward recommendation here relates to the arrest by those two officers of George Bartlett on 12 November from which we can certainly conclude that the date stated in the Police Orders does NOT relate to the date of arrest. Whether it relates to the date of conviction or the date of the initial recommendation of the reward is something that I am continuing to work on and expect to be able to answer by the end of the month.

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

Conflation, huh?

Boston Sunday Globe, November 18, 1888

DOING WHITECHAPEL.

Two Arrests on Suspicion Made Yesterday.

One a Chum of the Prince of Wales and the Other an American Physician.

Paris Mourns the Death of Abbe Crozes, the Murderer's Friend.
[COPYRIGHT.]

"LONDON, Nov. 17. - Just think of it! One of the Prince of Wales' own exclusives, a member of his household and cavalry and one of the best known of the many swells about town who glory in the glamor of the Guelphs, getting into custody on suspicion of being the Whitechapel murderer. It is the talk of all clubdom tonight.

"Just now it is a fashionable fad to slum it in Whitechapel, and every night scores of young men who have never been in the East End before in their lives, prowl around the neighbourhood of the murders, talking with frightened women. So long as two men keep together and do not make nuisances of themselves, the police do not interfere with them. But if a man goes alone and tries to lure a woman off the street into a secluded corner, he is pretty sure to get into trouble.

"That was the case of Sir George Arthur of Prince Wales' set. He put on an old shooting coat and slouch hat, and went to Whitechapel for a little fun. He got it. It occurred to two policemen that Sir George answered very much to the description of "Jack, the Ripper," and they watched him, and when they saw him talking with a woman they collared him. He protested and threatened them with the vengeance of the royal wrath, but in vain. Finally, a chance was given him to send to a fashionable West End Club and prove his identity and he was released with profuse apologies for the mistake. The affair was kept out of the newspapers, but the jolly young baronets at the Brooks Club considered the joke too good to keep quiet.

"Another arrest was a man who gave the name of Dr. Kumblety of New York. The police could not hold him on suspicion of the Whitechapel crimes, but he has been committed for trial, under a special law passed soon after the modern Babylon exposures. The police say this is the man's right name, as proved by letters in his possession from New York, and that he has been in the habit of crossing the ocean twice a year for several years.

"A score of men have been arrested by the police this week on suspicion, but the right man still roams at large, and everybody is momentarily expecting to hear of another victim.

"The large sums offered by private individuals as rewards have induced hundreds of amateur detectives to take a hand in the chase, but to no avail.

"Leon Rothschild has offered an income of 2 pounds a week for life for the man who gives the information leading to the arrest and conviction of the assassin."

How careless to get arrested for serial murder the day after you've been released on bail for indecent behaviour.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

Well in my view, Simon, you are here conflating the headline of this article (written by an editor at the newspaper) with the actual report dated 17 November which does NOT mention a date of arrest. The point the reporter was making was that the arrests were the talk of the clubdom "tonight", i.e. 17 November. So the editor has misunderstood and thinks the arrests happened on 17 November (which is not stated in the report). So what? It does nothing to change the point I have made that the reporter was extremely well informed and that there is a reasonable ground for saying that Tumblety had previously been arrested on suspicion of the Whitechapel murders prior to 7 November. And that arrest could have been on 4 November or earlier.

[David Orsam]

And Simon, it's worth adding, I think, that I specifically referred to the San Francisco Chronicle yet you came back with the Boston Sunday Globe. For the record, the San Francisco Chronicle carried the same report which ran with the very different headlines as below:

"GOSSIP OF LONDON.
_____
A Heavy Swell Arrested in Whitechapel.
_____

A Score of Prisoners, but No Clew.
_____

Rothschild Offers a Reward for the Murderer"

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

So the Boston Sunday Globe and the San Francisco Chronicle were two weeks late with the news of Tumblety's "Ripper" arrest?

You've been reading too many Mike Hawley posts.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

Simon, I don't follow your point at all about the newspaper being two weeks late with Tumblety's Ripper arrest. It would have only known about his arrest at the time of the arrest if the police reported it at the time, which they evidently did not. The likelihood is that the news of his arrest for the Whitechapel murders was only made public during Tumblety's committal/bail hearing. The author of the 17 November report made three statements about Tumblety (despite calling him Kumblety) and we know for a fact that he was 100% accurate about two of them. So he MIGHT have got the third one correct too.

I don't agree with everything Mike Hawley says but I think he's got this point spot on and you are in error in the way you view it, as I think I have demonstrated in this thread.

Now, I've given you the reasons why I think it is possible that the commendations on 4 November might relate to the prior arrest of Tumblety on suspicion of murder - I do NOT say that they do relate to this, only that they might. You asked me about it and I've answered and surely that is the end of it.