Metropolitan Police view of Tumblety today

[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]

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

[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.

[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]

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.

[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]

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]

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

[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]

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.

[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

[Dan Norder]

Hi Tim,

Thanks for that information. Looking at how Tumblety could be out on police bail, then brought in on a warrant for the same charge and be bailed again, there doesn't seem to be any reason to think that Tumblety was ever actually charged in relation to the Whitechapel murders, as was argued by Gideon Fell earlier in this thread.

[Gideon Fell]

Hi Tim,

Thanks for that information. Looking at how Tumblety could be out on police bail, then brought in on a warrant for the same charge and be bailed again, there doesn't seem to be any reason to think that Tumblety was ever actually charged in relation to the Whitechapel murders, as was argued by Gideon Fell earlier in this thread.

You have completely misread the posts. I haven't argued that Tumblety was 'out on police bail and then brought in on a warrant for the same charge.' What I said was that there is information as shown that he was arrested twice. He was first arrested on suspicion of being concerned with the murders and then released without charge as they had no evidence to charge or hold him. They then gathered evidence for the gross indecency charges in the form of statements and applied for a warrrant for these offences as is clearly shown in the 'Date of Warrant' column as 14th November. He would have then been arrested on warrant for gross indecency and held to appear before the court on the 16th November when he got his bail. The date of 7th November is shown in the Received into Custody column as it was the date he was first arrested, albeit on suspicion of the murders and not for the gross indecency. It is one explanation that answers most of the questions and doesn't require the Evans/Gainey explanation of police bail. It cannot be denied that a warrant is shown as being issued on 14th November and they wouldn't have needed that if he was already in custody.

[Cap'n Jack]

And it also shows that Tumblety was in custody on the 7th November, and despite your best efforts - and many others - there is no evidence at all to suggest that Tumblety was ever granted police bail.
That is an exercise in imagination.
And as I think you very well know, that as a criminal case moved from the magistrates court to the Old Bailey, the very nature of the charge changed from a 'nominal' offence to a felony.
Anyway what would you rather do?
18 months hard labour in Brixton Prison, or take a trip cabin class across the Atlantic?
Tumblety's entire arrest and warrant record make no mention of the Whitechapel Murders, and this is the open wound you boys have to stick little plasters on... but it will bleed.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

I'm throughly confused.

If the cops had no evidence with which to charge or hold Tumblety in connection with the WM, why arrest him on suspicion in the first place? Mind you, having said that, the cops did prove themselves dab hands at pulling in 1000-1 outsiders.

Further—if, having let Tumblety go on the 7th November for lack of evidence, the cops still had real suspicions about him being the WM, surely they would have kept him under 24-hour surveillance.

The Millers Court murder took place between Tumblety's (alleged) release without charge on 7th November and his appearance in court on 16th November.

That's nine days.

Où étaient les policiers pendant ce temps?

Regards,

Simon