Metropolitan Police view of Tumblety today

[timothy]

Gross Indecency Charges

Tumblety was arrested on Nov. 7, 1888 on the charges of gross indecency. Chris Scott posted on April 13, 2003, copies of a document showing the original charges. It can be viewed here: http://www.casebook.org/forum/messages/4922/6656.html

The concept of Police Bail was an old tradition and was formalized by the Metropolitan Police Act of 1839. Stephen Ryder posted information on that some time ago but it may have disappeared. The attached image is from the “Encyclopedia of the Laws of England with Forms and Precedents” published in 1906.


Best,

Tim

[Gideon Fell]

Yet another case of acts of gross indecency, in April 1891, where the offender De Tatham appeared at Marlborough Street Police Court before Mr. Hannay in answer to his bail and this was the same court and same magistrate that Tumblety had appeared before. He was even granted further bail when committed for trial.

[Gideon Fell]

And another one charged with 11 counts of gross indecency with boys in his school in July 1890 and the total imprisonment he received, despite there being eleven charges, was only four years.

[Gideon Fell]

Here is another conviction for gross indecency in November 1887 where the offender also received 18 months' imprisonment with hard labour.

[Gideon Fell]

To give an example of a similar offence as those committed by Tumblety there was the case of Moffatt (said to be a clergyman) and Fillingham (an Oxford undergraduate who was accused of aiding Moffatt) who were indicted for committing acts of gross indecency with two boys, in August 1886. Both offenders had been granted bail and this shows that bail was often granted for this offence. Moffatt was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment with hard labour.

[Gideon Fell]

I don't go along with this idea of Tumblety's criminal offences being of a 'nominal' nature, in fact I swerve to the other side of the road when I hear such things. Homosexual offences against young men in 1888 were considered to be very serious offences indeed, and I have taken the trouble to highlight two cases - tried at the Old Bailey in the same year - where the result was life imprisonment for one offender, and 10 years for the other.
Such serious criminal offences may well not have been subject to the law of extradition in America, but that does not diminish the seriousness of the offence in the country it was committed. Tumblety was due at the Old Bailey, which does mean his offences were not considered of a 'nominal' nature at all, for a magistrates court would have dealt with such 'nominal' cases, and it would not be unreasonable to suggest that if Tumblety had appeared at the Old Bailey then he would have received a minimum sentence of 8 years, when not much more if the young men had been younger than has previously been thought.

If the Burleigh (a clerk in holy orders) and the Rev. Widdows case of January-March 1888 is being cited here then the above post is totally misleading. This case was a very serious case of committing and conspiring to commit acts of gross indecency and a felony with two young boys at Christ's Hospital school. Also Burleigh had a previous conviction for acts of indecency back in 1886 when he had received 18 months' imprisonment with hard labour. Moreover Burleigh was found guilty at this time of a felony (a much more serious offence probably involving penetration), not a mere gross indecency (a misdemeanour) under Section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885 which is what Tumblety was charged with. In passing a life sentence on Burleigh Mr. Justice A. L. Smith described the case as being one of extreme gravity. He sentenced Widdows to 10 years.

[Gideon Fell]

I don't think that there can be any doubt that Tumblety was initially arrested on suspicion of being concerned with the Whitechapel murders as many press reports state this (like the New York Daily Tribune one above) and Tumblety himself stated it. However I don't think the police had a scrap of hard evidence against him (they probably hoped that he would admit something) and they had to release him. I think it was then that they gathered to evidence for the gross indecency charges in order to re-arrest him and try to hold him and the arrest warrant, as per the court calendar, was issued on the 14th of November, he was held for court but he managed to get bail. In view of the lack of detailed information and drawing on what is available it's all I can read into it.

[Cap'n Jack]

And that Tumblety was in police custody on the 7th November for the offences he was charged with, which had absolutely nothing to do with the Whitechapel Murders.
That is the smelly crutch piece of the argument.

[Gideon Fell]

With all due respect to Mr Evans this would also show that his bail postulations are meaningless as the only bail involved was that of 16th November when Tumblety was released and scarpered. Looks like another police c*ck up to me.

[Gideon Fell]

Here's a close-up of Tumblety's entry clearly showing the issue of warrant date as 14th November.

[Gideon Fell]

Here is the calendar entry showing that a warrant was issued for Tumblety on 14th November. What has to be understood about these calendar entries is that they are retrospective and were printed in late December so that the date of trial/result is also shown. It's all a bit complex and it's a pity all the court records haven't survived then we'd know for sure. But at least this shows a warrant was issued on 14th November.

[Gideon Fell]

Unlikely as Tumblety may seem as Jack the Ripper there is no doubt that he was arrested as a suspect. It seems he was arrested twice which may give the answer to the apparent bail contradictions. In his own interview that was recently found I noticed that Tumblety said that he had been locked up only 'two or three days' and he did state that he had been arrested as a Whitechapel suspect. The court calendar shows that a warrant was issued for him on 14th November 1888 then he was bailed on 16th November when he appeared at the magistrate court. To me this seems to show that he was first arrested on 7th November and released after a couple of days then re-arrested on the 14th November warrant for the indecency offences. This would explain a lot. This report in the New York Daily Tribune seems to clearly show that his arrest on suspicion came first but he was released (through lack of evidence). Then he was later 'rearrested on another charge and held for trial', which would tie in with the warrant issued on 14th November. This could explain a lot. The date of 7th November given as received into custody probably indicates the date of his first arrest and as it is only a calendar entry the release and re-arrest details would not be given.

[Cap'n Jack]

I don't go along with this idea of Tumblety's criminal offences being of a 'nominal' nature, in fact I swerve to the other side of the road when I hear such things. Homosexual offences against young men in 1888 were considered to be very serious offences indeed, and I have taken the trouble to highlight two cases - tried at the Old Bailey in the same year - where the result was life imprisonment for one offender, and 10 years for the other.
Such serious criminal offences may well not have been subject to the law of extradition in America, but that does not diminish the seriousness of the offence in the country it was committed. Tumblety was due at the Old Bailey, which does mean his offences were not considered of a 'nominal' nature at all, for a magistrates court would have dealt with such 'nominal' cases, and it would not be unreasonable to suggest that if Tumblety had appeared at the Old Bailey then he would have received a minimum sentence of 8 years, when not much more if the young men had been younger than has previously been thought.
I don't believe the actual senior police officers of the time would have been fully aware of the extradition laws between the UK and USA, which is why when such extradition process was organised by Scotland Yard it was done by lawyers acting on behalf of the Yard, rather than the senior officers themselves.
I'm interested in the idea that it was Scotland Yard who were waiting for Tumblety when he arrived in New York - besides the New York Police I mean of course - as I've always thought it was a private detective agency that met him and then dogged his movements?

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Hi Graham.

Correct me if I'm wrong (form an orderly queue...), but isn't the Littlechild Letter the ONLY known, extant reference to Dr T made by anyone associated with the police?

Well, yes and no. The Littlechild letter is the only example from a police source which specifically states that Tumblety was a “likely” Ripper suspect (likely in Littlechild’s mind). This is an important point to keep in mind, but there are other clear indications that the London police were interested in Tumblety which disprove your speculation below:

I've often wondered if, in his famous letter to G R Sims, Littlechild might just have been extrapolating his knowledge of, and interest in, Dr T. Who, let's face it, was a real weird-o.

First of all, Scotland Yard contacted Chief Inspector Byrnes of the New York Police Department and asked him to keep an eye on Tumblety after Tumblety had jumped bail and sailed to New York. We don’t know specifically what they told Byrnes but it is clear that he at least knew about the sexual assaults Tumblety had been charged with. As these were considered “nominal” offences which didn’t warrant extradition it seems extremely odd that Scotland Yard would go to the trouble of contacting the NYPD because of them.

Secondly, Scotland Yard had someone waiting at the pier when Tumblety’s ship docked in New York. There are news reports which prove this so London obviously felt it important to have their own pair of eyes on the “doctor.” This doesn’t mean, however, that Scotland Yard specifically sent someone rushing after Tumblety, or that they had someone follow him on board his ship. The Whitechapel murder investigation didn’t have funds for this type of extravagance. The likely answer is that they used someone who was already there in New York. I have speculated that this was ex-Scotland Yard Inspector James Thomson who was in New York at the time of Tumblety’s arrival doing secret work for the Times against Parnell. Only months earlier Thomson had done some secret work for Sir Robert Anderson, the head of the Ripper investigation.

Thirdly, when San Francisco Police Chief Crowley contacted Scotland Yard, after reading about Tumblety, and offered to send examples of Tumblety’s hand writing to London Sir Robert Anderson’s response wasn’t “WHO?” but “Thanks. Send writing and all details you can in relation to him. ANDERSON.” Again, this would seem to indicate a greater interest in Tumblety than a homosexual bail jumper would warrant.

Wolf.

[Cap'n Jack]

Thanks Graham and Sam
just for a jolly wouldn't you?
I'll strike me colours and fall into me pit. For now.