Tumblety - Hermaphrodite.

[GUT]

1. Yes it is possible to get an erection while being raped, I wonder if you’d ask the same about a woman, can she get aroused or have an irgasm while being raped? I think that defence was rejected about the time Jack finished his spree, or not that long after. Though some idiots still try to use it as a defence to this day.

2.not all sexual assault involves “intercourse” there are other things go on you know.

3. No, consensual homosexual activity was still a crime upto 1967

Ohh forgot to ad men get rape$ by women too, yes even now, and guess what sometimes their bodies react when they’re not consenting, just like a woman’s can.

[David Orsam]

Hi David
Thanks. Do you have any other insight of what actually took place though? I mean is this rape?

Hi Abby,

In the absence of any facts of the specific case I'd rather not speculate about what Tumblety did or did not do.

However, what I can say is that it is a mistake to for anyone to think that a charge of indecent assault must have meant that force was used and that a physical assault actually occurred. The reason I say this is because the 1880 Criminal Law Amendment Act said that it was "no defence to a charge or indictment for an indecent assault on a young person under the age of thirteen to prove that he or she consented to the act of indecency".

In other words, if an adult committed a sexual offence against a minor, even with that minor's consent, it was still categorised as indecent assault.

The age, incidentally, at which consent became relevant was raised to 16 under the 1922 Criminal Law Amendment Act. The 1956 Sexual Offences Act stated: "It is a defence to indecent assault if the person consented, but a person under the age of 16 years cannot give their consent, so even if the sexual touching occurs with their permission it is still assault." I quote this because of the mention of "sexual touching" which appears to be the definition here of indecent assault.

When one examines other cases of gross indecency and indecent assault one invariably finds that they involve a sexual offence or offences committed by a man against young boys. In the twentieth century these have typically been cases involving a vicar fiddling with choirboys or a teacher with his pupils etc.

One does not find much explicit details in the newspaper reports and a typical report can be found in the Times of 8 April 1919 in the case of Robert Seton Higgins a 36 year old lieutenant in the army who was acquitted of an indictment charging him with committing an act of gross indecency and indecent assault. The newspaper states:

"The complainant, a messenger boy, alleged that the defendant behaved in an indecent manner towards him in a room in the West End where he was called to do some packing. The defendant said there was not a word of truth in the allegation."

That doesn't reveal much but a bit more detail relating to this type of charge can be found in the Times of 6 June 1962 in the case of Sir Ian Horbin who was charged with offences of indecency and indecent assault against a 14 year old boy with the report stating that the boy "was first of all taken for a ride in Horobin's Rolls Royce and asked whether he would like to earn 10s, extra pocket money. He was on a number of occasions invited to the warden's room but refused to go. Eventually he did accept an invitation and behind locked doors an indecent assault took place for which he was paid £2….Thereafter he went once more to Sir Ian's room where a similar indecent assault took place."

So there we have an indecent assault for which the boy was paid and there is no mention of actual resistance during the act and, as I say, under the law there did not need to be.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

In the absence of any facts of the specific case I'd rather not speculate about what Tumblety did or did not do.

However, what I can say is that it is a mistake to for anyone to think that a charge of indecent assault must have meant that force was used and that a physical assault actually occurred. The reason I say this is because the 1880 Criminal Law Amendment Act said that it was "no defence to a charge or indictment for an indecent assault on a young person under the age of thirteen to prove that he or she consented to the act of indecency".

In other words, if an adult committed a sexual offence against a minor, even with that minor's consent, it was still categorised as indecent assault.

The age, incidentally, at which consent became relevant was raised to 16 under the 1922 Criminal Law Amendment Act. The 1956 Sexual Offences Act stated: "It is a defence to indecent assault if the person consented, but a person under the age of 16 years cannot give their consent, so even if the sexual touching occurs with their permission it is still assault." I quote this because of the mention of "sexual touching" which appears to be the definition here of indecent assault.

When one examines other cases of gross indecency and indecent assault one invariably finds that they involve a sexual offence or offences committed by a man against young boys. In the twentieth century these have typically been cases involving a vicar fiddling with choirboys or a teacher with his pupils etc.

One does not find much explicit details in the newspaper reports and a typical report can be found in the Times of 8 April 1919 in the case of Robert Seton Higgins a 36 year old lieutenant in the army who was acquitted of an indictment charging him with committing an act of gross indecency and indecent assault. The newspaper states:

"The complainant, a messenger boy, alleged that the defendant behaved in an indecent manner towards him in a room in the West End where he was called to do some packing. The defendant said there was not a word of truth in the allegation."

That doesn't reveal much but a bit more detail relating to this type of charge can be found in the Times of 6 June 1962 in the case of Sir Ian Horbin who was charged with offences of indecency and indecent assault against a 14 year old boy with the report stating that the boy "was first of all taken for a ride in Horobin's Rolls Royce and asked whether he would like to earn 10s, extra pocket money. He was on a number of occasions invited to the warden's room but refused to go. Eventually he did accept an invitation and behind locked doors an indecent assault took place for which he was paid £2….Thereafter he went once more to Sir Ian's room where a similar indecent assault took place."

So there we have an indecent assault for which the boy was paid and there is no mention of actual resistance during the act and, as I say, under the law there did not need to be.

Thanks David
I guess I’m having a hard time reconciling Norris account of being forced at knife point with apparently innocuous charges of soliciting gay services from men or boys? In London.

Do we know how old the accusers in London were?

[David Orsam]

Do we know how old the accusers in London were?

I certainly don't. The ages of the victims of the alleged indecent assaults by Tumblety aren't stated on the indictment in which they are all referred to as "male person[s]".

[David Orsam]

I will say though that if the four males had been below the age of 16 I would have expected that to have been reflected in the After-Trial Calendar, which it isn't.

[Abby Normal]

I will say though that if the four males had been below the age of 16 I would have expected that to have been reflected in the After-Trial Calendar, which it isn't.

Thanks David
So if they weren’t all under the age of thirteen, then it wasn’t consensual for example or just for money? If they’re over thirteen it dosnt rule out force?

[caz]

1. Yes it is possible to get an erection while being raped, I wonder if you’d ask the same about a woman, can she get aroused or have an irgasm while being raped? I think that defence was rejected about the time Jack finished his spree, or not that long after. Though some idiots still try to use it as a defence to this day.

2.not all sexual assault involves “intercourse” there are other things go on you know.

3. No, consensual homosexual activity was still a crime upto 1967

Not sure how any of the above relates to what I was asking in my post, GUT, but there you are.

1. I honestly didn't know - not having any relevant experience - that men or women could get aroused or have an orgasm while being sexually assaulted at knifepoint, or that anything of the kind had ever been used as a 'defence' by the accused. I live and learn and am duly reprimanded for my ignorance.

2. I didn't even mention penetration or "intercourse", so no need for speech marks to imply that I did, or that I meant either when mentioning erections and sexual assaults. The clues were there - I said fondling fits the definition of a sexual assault if it is unwelcome.

3. I know it was still a crime up to 1967 to indulge in consensual homosexual activity. That was my point. If there were no witnesses willing to testify, everyone involved would have walked unless they claimed one - Tumblety in this case - had forced his attentions on them sexually against their will. They were never going to admit to the crime of consensual activity, were they? I don't know if Tumblety committed these assaults against all four men against their will. Men, persons or boys? If they were all under thirteen it could not have been consensual, but if they were older it's at least possible. I don't even know if they were gay or straight. I was merely suggesting it seems to be a grey area.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Ohh forgot to ad men get rape$ by women too, yes even now, and guess what sometimes their bodies react when they’re not consenting, just like a woman’s can.

Fine. I honestly didn't know that.

And I'm very thankful I didn't.

Love,

Caz
X

[Robert]

I saw a programme about Stalin's gulags. It was said that a number of women in a women's camp somehow clapped eyes on a man and had their way with him. The idea was that if they could get pregnant, they'd be moved to a softer camp.

[mklhawley]

Hi all,

David is right, and we really don't know the ages of the four men involved in the gross indecency and indecent assault (census records are yet to be definitive). There is a pattern with the age of young men Tumblety was attracted to, so this is just an extrapolation. Richard Norris was 19 years old when Tumblety approached him and Hall Caine was around the same age. I don't have my records in front of me (at work), but the men in the recent records who stated they met him, they were between 15 and 21. The homeless person Tumblety was arrested in Baltimore for -for being caught in his room in a compromising position- was stated to be a young man and not a boy.

Although, there is one case of a boy being molested by Tumblety (another in Baltimore), it seems to me, Tumblety preferred males OVER the age of 13. Keep in mind, how many parents of anyone 13 and younger would accept letters from a man?

We also see Tumblety selecting someone and sticking with them for years, as in Norris between the age of 19 and 39. McGarry was for 10 years. We know Tumblety had been visiting England consistently since 1873, so I'm curious if one or more of these men were involved with Tumblety for a few years.

Sincerely,

Mike

[ChrisGeorge]

. . . I know it was still a crime up to 1967 to indulge in consensual homosexual activity. That was my point. If there were no witnesses willing to testify, everyone involved would have walked unless they claimed one - Tumblety in this case - had forced his attentions on them sexually against their will. They were never going to admit to the crime of consensual activity, were they? I don't know if Tumblety committed these assaults against all four men against their will. Men, persons or boys? If they were all under thirteen it could not have been consensual, but if they were older it's at least possible. I don't even know if they were gay or straight. I was merely suggesting it seems to be a grey area.

Love,

Caz
X

It would be my assumption that the police then as later would have sought to monitor the sexual activity of a man such as Tumblety and catch him "in the act." I would think that was the case in London as also years later in Baltimore.

Chris

[mklhawley]

3. I know it was still a crime up to 1967 to indulge in consensual homosexual activity. That was my point. If there were no witnesses willing to testify, everyone involved would have walked unless they claimed one - Tumblety in this case - had forced his attentions on them sexually against their will. They were never going to admit to the crime of consensual activity, were they? I don't know if Tumblety committed these assaults against all four men against their will. Men, persons or boys? If they were all under thirteen it could not have been consensual, but if they were older it's at least possible. I don't even know if they were gay or straight. I was merely suggesting it seems to be a grey area.

According to Oldbailey online, there were 81 cases of gross indecency between 1885 and 1895, and only 8 cases of gross indecency AND indecent assault. I'm sure none of these 73 cases were a case of admitting to the police, yet indecent assault was not involved.

Mike

[Abby Normal]

I guess the question is-how violent was T with the London cases.

In the Norris case-its pretty bad-rape basically, or attempted rape, certainly a physical assault and kidnapping.

the London cases appear to be anything from soliciting and or having gay sex with a minor (whether consensual or not) to something akin to what happened to Norris, correct?

[mklhawley]

I guess the question is-how violent was T with the London cases.

In the Norris case-its pretty bad-rape basically, or attempted rape, certainly a physical assault and kidnapping.

the London cases appear to be anything from soliciting and or having gay sex with a minor (whether consensual or not) to something akin to what happened to Norris, correct?

His attorney, Frank Widner, was so threatened by Tumblety in his office in 1902 (just a year or less before he died), that he physically backed his chair up. This, though, was a rage issue. There is one bit of evidence. Littlechild made a comment about people like Tumblety being given to violence against their sex interest: It is very strange how those given to 'Contrary sexual instinct' and 'degenerates' are given to cruelty, even Wilde used to like to be punched about. When he states, "even Wilde," this seems to infer he was not connecting Wilde to his earlier cruelty comment but Tumblety.

Littlechild certainly read the dossier.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Steadmund Brand]

Problem is we don't know... it could have been soliciting for sure... or.. as Mike suggested, these could have been men Tumblety had known and was just caught... or.. tried to take the "friendship" farther and they panicked, or reported him, sadly as Tumblety always had money on him, it was easy to skirt certain charges (as it is now with money), If I had to guess... and it is only a guess, Tumblety was caught trying to pick someone up, the police found the letters he had on him, busted him, but he was able to buy his way out (for the most part)... I also don't think it was a first offence as they had a file on him already.. he was a known "pervert".

The thing with Tumblety is, once he found someone, he would try to stay with them (in a casual sense) for as long as he could, as Mike has pointed out, not get close, but stay in contact (in touch would have been a bad pun) and have that kind of "relationship" .. but we know he also liked "cruising" in slums (in DC, in London, in St. Louis, in Rochester etc.)

Steadmund Brand