The Birmingham suspect : Lewis or Hutch's ?

[Scott Nelson]

The Birmingham suspect was Nicholas Vassily.

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

The story which has been going the round the foreign newspapers, of a supposed Russian named Wassili, being concerned in the crimes, has now seem shown to be a myth.

The report of a man having been arrested at Euston station yesterday afternoon, who had travelled from Birmingham, is incorrect. The authorities at Scotland Yard decline to give any information on the subject; but from many circumstances it is believed the report is unfounded.

Both of the above are from the same article concerning the Euston Station Suspect from Reynold’s Newspaper, Special Sunday Edition, 18 November, 1888, but I'm not so sure that this means that Wassili was the suspect. That an arrest actually did take place seems almost certain considering the amount of press coverage.

It was also widely reported that the Birmingham Police did not tell Scotland Yard to arrest the man but only suggested that they might want to keep an eye on him. That Scotland Yard arrested the man shows a certain amount of desperation.

Tumblety, obviously, doesn’t enter the picture here, no matter how Tumblety supporters want to spin this. He was in London, part of the time under remand and in jail, while the Birmingham Police were watching their down-on-his-luck doctor in Birmingham.

Wolf.

[mklhawley]

Both of the above are from the same article concerning the Euston Station Suspect from Reynold’s Newspaper, Special Sunday Edition, 18 November, 1888, but I'm not so sure that this means that Wassili was the suspect. That an arrest actually did take place seems almost certain considering the amount of press coverage.

It was also widely reported that the Birmingham Police did not tell Scotland Yard to arrest the man but only suggested that they might want to keep an eye on him. That Scotland Yard arrested the man shows a certain amount of desperation.

Tumblety, obviously, doesn’t enter the picture here, no matter how Tumblety supporters want to spin this. He was in London, part of the time under remand and in jail, while the Birmingham Police were watching their down-on-his-luck doctor in Birmingham.

Wolf.

Cherry picking the newspaper accounts again, eh, Wolf. Of course, it can be argued that I'm doing the same thing.

Tumblety made bail on November 16, so would it be in Tumblety fashion to hang out or would it be in Tumblety fashion to check out? If I were Dr. T, I'd be going to my other residence on the 16th, that being Birmingham. In so doing, he would not violate the terms of the bail...until he boarded on the 24th.

...unless you have some evidence he was hanging out in London.

[DVV]

It was also widely reported that the Birmingham Police did not tell Scotland Yard to arrest the man but only suggested that they might want to keep an eye on him. That Scotland Yard arrested the man shows a certain amount of desperation.
Wolf.

Hi Wolf, yes that's right, and I agree it shows "a certain amount of desperation".
It shows also that the suspicion came from the Birmingham police, and then has perhaps little to do with Lewis or any other witness, and more with the widespread 'mad doctor' trail.

Dvvvvv

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Hi DVV.

It shows also that the suspicion came from the Birmingham police, and then has perhaps little to do with Lewis or any other witness, and more with the widespread 'mad doctor' trail.

Yes, exactly. The Belfast News Letter, Monday, 19 November, 1888, reported:

“The Birmingham detectives state to-night that there was no special reason to suspect the medical assistant who was arrested at Euston yesterday, and subsequently released, but the fact that a man of his appearance and position was staying at a low lodging-house, and that he had come from London warrants their watching him, and advising Scotland Yard authorities that he had taken train for London. In some respects he answered the published descriptions, but he is now believed to be a medical man reduced in circumstances, and had no connection with the Whitechapel outrages.”

The suspect was merely a London doctor who arrived in Birmingham 3 days after the murder of Mary Kelly and who moved into a slum area. This, they obviously felt, was highly suspicious.

Wolf.

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Mike.

Cherry picking the newspaper accounts again, eh, Wolf. Of course, it can be argued that I'm doing the same thing.

I’m not sure how I’m “cherry picking newspaper accounts” or exactly what “again” means in relation to my above post. Perhaps you can explain yourself.

Tumblety made bail on November 16, so would it be in Tumblety fashion to hang out or would it be in Tumblety fashion to check out? If I were Dr. T, I'd be going to my other residence on the 16th, that being Birmingham. In so doing, he would not violate the terms of the bail...until he boarded on the 24th.

This is quite a coup Mike. Up till now we’ve had no idea exactly where Tumblety was staying during the Autumn of 1888 but you say in Birmingham. That’s really great news and I congratulate you for discovering it. I remember a time when you claimed that Tumblety was living in Whitechapel. I also remember posting to you a news item (the Wheeling Register, 8 December, 1888) in which a female friend of Tumblety’s stated that he was living at Charing Cross in the West End of London, but I’ve noticed that you have tended to ignored this. Perhaps you can now tell all of us where this amazing new information comes from? What is your source? Where is your proof?

Tumblety, arrested and bailed in London, would not be allowed to travel out of the city without violating the terms of his bail and would be immediately rearrested if he did so.

...unless you have some evidence he was hanging out in London.

Tumblety was arrested for gross indecency and indecent assault with force and arms on Wednesday, 7 November, 1888. He was likely given police bail, set free, and told to return in 7 days. When those 7 days were up, on Wednesday 14 November, the warrant against Tumblety was re-issued. Sometime, either on or after Wednesday the 14th, Tumblety was re arrested and held in jail. On Friday the 16th of November Tumblety was granted bail of £300, released, and told to appear at the Central Criminal Courts (Old Bailey) for trial during the November sessions (which opened on Monday, 19 November).

On Monday, the 19th of November, 1888, the Birmingham Daily Post, after speaking with the Birmingham Police, wrote that the Euston Station Suspect “had been staying in Birmingham since the 12th inst. At a very cheap common lodging-house, No. 109, Rea Street.” Therefore this suspect had first arrived in Birmingham on Monday the 12th of November. The Daily Post goes on to state that “A day or two after his arrival the police were informed of his presence, and at once set a watch upon him” Therefore the Birmingham Police had the suspect under surveillance from either Tuesday, the 13th of November, or Wednesday, the 14th of November (the London Daily Mail states that “It has since transpired that he has been watched by Birmingham police for the last five days,” or, from the 12th to the 17th, but that appears to be incorrect). This surveillance continued – while Tumblety was under arrest and in jail in London – until the suspect boarded “the 11.45 London and North-Western train” and left Birmingham for London on Saturday, the 17th of November.

The description of the man, also, does not match that of Tumblety. The Belfast News Letter described him as a “medical assistant,” which supports what The Birmingham Daily Post stated: “The suspected man was a medical man who was some years ago practising in London with another gentleman of some repute.” It went on to say “He has a sandy moustache and whiskers, and is, in point of height and otherwise, like the man with whom Kelly is stated to have passed her last night alive.” This would seem to indicate that the suspect looked something like the man with the “carroty moustache” that Mary Ann Cox had seen with Kelly rather than the man of “Jewish appearance” with dark hair that George Hutchinson claimed to have seen. If so, the man was described by Cox as “about 36 years old, about 5ft 5in high, complexion fresh and I believe he had blotches on his face, small side whiskers, and a thick carrotty moustache, dressed in shabby dark clothes, dark overcoat and black felt hat.”

It is obvious, except to the deluded, apparently, that this man could not have been Tumblety.

Wolf.

[lynn cates]

Vassiliev

Hello Scott, Wolf. The Vassiliev story seems to have originated in St. Petersburg via Paris. It was almost certainly a yarn woven by Pyotr Rachkovski and/or some of his lieutenants. By the time it reached late November, he had become an "Anarchist."

Suffice it to say it represents Rachkovski in one of his least brilliant coups.

Cheers.
LC

[mariab]

This is precisely what I wanted to post, Lynn, but was hesitating to initiate another highjack. Pertainining to Mr. Vanderlinden's post #32, I'm waiting to read Mr. Hawley's upcoming article in the NIR pertaining to his discoveries on the Birmingham arrest from November 1888.
Pertaining to Vassiliev, there are 2 informative threads at the JTRForums. The earliest newspaper mention of Vassiliev that we've located so far was pre double event.

[Tom_Wescott]

The description of the man, also, does not match that of Tumblety. The Belfast News Letter described him as a “medical assistant,” which supports what The Birmingham Daily Post stated: “The suspected man was a medical man who was some years ago practising in London with another gentleman of some repute.”

In other words, this fellow was in the same position of Edward Johnston of Berner Street fame. Easily mistaken for a doctor, but not one, and apparently did not try to pass himself off as one. But he would stand out being educated, well-spoken, and probably still in possession of clothing and items more genteel than shabby. But I don't believe medical assistants made much money.

Clearly, the man being described here can't be Tumblety. But he doesn't sound like Wassili/Vasily either.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[lynn cates]

Birmingham blues

Hello Maria. Thanks for that.

Actually, that is on topic. This thread concerns the Birmingham suspect. Vassiliev was suggested. I am opining that he was not the likely one.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

via negativa

Hello Tom.

"Clearly, the man being described here can't be Tumblety. But he doesn't sound like Wassili/Vasily either. "

Completely agree. So now to figure out whom he was?

Cheers.
LC

[mariab]

Actually, that is on topic. This thread concerns the Birmingham suspect. Vassiliev was suggested. I am opining that he was not the likely one.

Oops, didn't even notice! Thought this had started as a Hutch thread.(Am working on something else right now, checking casebook on the side.)
As the Reynold’s Newspaper from November 18, 1888 corroborates, the Euston station suspect was not a Russian named Vassiliev, and it's a fact that a Vassiliev serial killer of women never existed in France. (Though there might have been several anarchists named Vassiliev, since it's a pretty common name. Have you encountered any yourself, Lynn?)

So now to figure out whom he was?

Why don't we all wait for Mike Hawley's article to come out before coming to conclusions?

Lynn, did you get my email about Rachkovsky?

[mklhawley]

Mike.



I’m not sure how I’m “cherry picking newspaper accounts” or exactly what “again” means in relation to my above post. Perhaps you can explain yourself.

This will be later

This is quite a coup Mike. Up till now we’ve had no idea exactly where Tumblety was staying during the Autumn of 1888 but you say in Birmingham. That’s really great news and I congratulate you for discovering it. I remember a time when you claimed that Tumblety was living in Whitechapel. I also remember posting to you a news item (the Wheeling Register, 8 December, 1888) in which a female friend of Tumblety’s stated that he was living at Charing Cross in the West End of London, but I’ve noticed that you have tended to ignored this. Perhaps you can now tell all of us where this amazing new information comes from? What is your source? Where is your proof?

Discovering what? I began my sentence with "If I were Dr T..." The only evidence we have is...a friend of Tumbletys? Absent bias there, eh. You of all people should realize Tumblety never hangs around. You mean to tell me he finally did?

Tumblety, arrested and bailed in London, would not be allowed to travel out of the city without violating the terms of his bail and would be immediately rearrested if he did so.

The 'terms of his bail' is exactly right, except we do not know if the magistrate executed a writ Ne Exeat Regno in restraining a person from leaving the jurisdiction of the court or leaving the country. Since it was merely a misdemeanor case and Tumblety was residing in Birmingham, I'm sure Tumblety's legal representative was successful.

Tumblety was arrested for gross indecency and indecent assault with force and arms on Wednesday, 7 November, 1888. He was likely given police bail, set free, and told to return in 7 days. When those 7 days were up, on Wednesday 14 November, the warrant against Tumblety was re-issued. Sometime, either on or after Wednesday the 14th, Tumblety was re arrested and held in jail. On Friday the 16th of November Tumblety was granted bail of £300, released, and told to appear at the Central Criminal Courts (Old Bailey) for trial during the November sessions (which opened on Monday, 19 November).

Nothing new.

On Monday, the 19th of November, 1888, the Birmingham Daily Post, after speaking with the Birmingham Police, wrote that the Euston Station Suspect “had been staying in Birmingham since the 12th inst. At a very cheap common lodging-house, No. 109, Rea Street.” Therefore this suspect had first arrived in Birmingham on Monday the 12th of November. The Daily Post goes on to state that “A day or two after his arrival the police were informed of his presence, and at once set a watch upon him” Therefore the Birmingham Police had the suspect under surveillance from either Tuesday, the 13th of November, or Wednesday, the 14th of November (the London Daily Mail states that “It has since transpired that he has been watched by Birmingham police for the last five days,” or, from the 12th to the 17th, but that appears to be incorrect). This surveillance continued – while Tumblety was under arrest and in jail in London – until the suspect boarded “the 11.45 London and North-Western train” and left Birmingham for London on Saturday, the 17th of November.

Wolf, you're rehashing an argument we've already covered last year. If the report is accurate, then I agree with you. If Canada's Deputy Minister William Smith was correct, then the papers got it wrong.

(Smith) "(Tumblety) had been living in Birmingham and used to come up to London on Saturday nights. The police have always had their eyes on him every place he went, and finally the Birmingham Police telegraphed to the London Police that he left for London, and on his arrival he was nabbed accordingly." - Deputy Minister Smith.


More to come.

[Stewart P Evans]

The Euston Station Suspect

...
It was also widely reported that the Birmingham Police did not tell Scotland Yard to arrest the man but only suggested that they might want to keep an eye on him. That Scotland Yard arrested the man shows a certain amount of desperation.
Tumblety, obviously, doesn’t enter the picture here, no matter how Tumblety supporters want to spin this. He was in London, part of the time under remand and in jail, while the Birmingham Police were watching their down-on-his-luck doctor in Birmingham.
Wolf.

Whilst I do not like to enter into debates about Tumblety and did not extend my Tumblety research beyond 1996 I shall give my opinion, for what it's worth, here. That is with the caveat, of course, that any new information that may emerge might alter that opinion.

I have to say that I agree with Wolf here and I have never believed that the 'Euston Station suspect' was Tumblety, albeit I looked into it over fifteen years ago. It is a tempting idea but the known facts militate against it. As Wolf points out, correctly, Tumblety was probably otherwise occupied in London.

[Stewart P Evans]

Legal Procedure

...If this were Tumblety, would not the timeline be a bit problematic? I thought he was bailed on the 16th and was at the Old Bailey on the 20th?
...
LC

I have noticed some really odd posts made by those who do not understand legal procedure and terminology. I may post more on this later.

For the time being what we can say about Tumblety, with certainty, is that he was first entered into custody for gross indecency on Wednesday 7 November 1888. A warrant to put him before the Police Court for committal was issued on Wednesday 14 November, significantly exactly a week later. He made that Police Court (Marlborough Street) appearance two days later on Friday 16 November where he managed to raise a surety and get bail. He was never seen in court again.

At the court appearance on 16 November he was committed for trial at the next Assize Sessions opening at the Central Criminal Court (Old Bailey), on Monday 19 November 1888, to where about 70 persons in total had been committed for trial. Tumblety estreated his bail and fled to France (Boulogne), making his way to Havre from where he sailed to the USA on Saturday 24 November 1888, arriving in New York on Sunday 2 December 1888.