Metropolitan Police view of Tumblety today

[Cap'n Jack]

And to answer the allegations that I am concerned in some kind of personal vendetta to ensure that Tumblety is no longer taken as a serious suspect for the Whitechapel Murders, I should just like to point out that recent research I have undertaken in the Liverpool press has revealed a previously unpublished case where Tumblety actually faces a charge of manslaughter, when not murder... of course he got away with it.
I have published this new case on How's forums without let or hindrance, and without negative comment.
I would be interested to hear how my successful efforts to put Tumblety into an English court on a charge of manslaughter or even murder has negated his role in the Whitechapel Murders?

[Dan Norder]

Let's break this down... Here are the alleged claims you are ridiculing:

Tumblety was never a Ripper suspect,

We know he was suspected at some point. The main questions are when this suspicion first arose (before or after the newspaper reports in the U.S. claiming he was a Ripper suspect is a crucial determination -- it could very easily have been the tail wagging the dog), how widespread it was (did anyone in the police other than Littlechild put any stock into it), and what exactly this suspicion was based upon (it seems like Littlechild focuses on his homosexuality and his having left the country after the Kelly murder).

the American press and Tumblety made it all up,

If you consider that at all unlikely then you apparently don't know much about the reliability of the press in general or the ways Tumblety was used to making publicity for himself. It is remarkably that we don't find the supporting details in England that we should expect if the original claims in the press were accurate.

Anderson never telegraphed the US authorities for a sample of Tumblety's handwriting,

The San Francisco Police Chief unambiguously said he volunteered it (his idea, not Anderson's) and that he thought of this after the press had already been calling him a Ripper suspect, not before. The idea that Anderson made this request comes from a New York report that came out after the San Francisco reports and got the information on the date it happened and who had contacted the other mixed up.

and Littlechild got it all wrong

Well, certainly not all of it, but he did say that Tumblety "shortly left Boulogne and was never heard of afterwards. It was believed he committed suicide" -- which seems to be a rather amazing statement to make if we were supposed to believe he was a serious suspect investigated by police.

- or worse still the Littlechild letter is a fake.

Well, yes, that accusation -- whether made directly or indirectly -- is bizarre and inexcusable. The idea that anyone would include statements which so severely cripple any serious case to be made against Tumblety while ostensibly trying to forge a document to make him a suspect in the first place is a complete nonstarter, and there has never been anything at all about the document's writing or provenance that would give anyone a reason to distrust it as something genuinely written by Littlechild. The only accusations made have come from people with extremely questionable credibility themselves and who appear to want simply to smear the good reputations of others by baseless insinuations of wrongdoing instead of any actual reasons to question it.

[Cap'n Jack]

And just so folks don't think I'm talking out of my oversized pirating hat; of the 23 news reports I was able to find in the American press detailing Tumblety's involvement in the Whitechapel Murders, only four make mention of his arrest in another connection; two of those actually mentioning 'Babylon laws'; one describing the offence as 'special', and another as 'nominal'.
Not one press report mentions that the offences in England were committed against young men.
All in all I would say that Tumblety did very well out of the Whitechapel Murders.

[Cap'n Jack]

Just a few points, Gideon.
Surely there were press reports in 1888 that speculated that Andrews had crossed the Big Pond in pursuit of a 'fugitive Ripper'?

Anderson certainly did not contact the American authorities for specimens of Tumblety's handwriting. It was Chief of Police of the SFPD who contacted Anderson offering to wire specimens of Tumblety's handwriting.
Anderson said 'yes, please' in response.
What do you think Anderson was going to say?

Forgive me if I err, but surely the 'Modern Babylon Legislation' applied equally to both sexes so the American press would not have known to which sex specifically the charges against Tumblety applied.
My point anyway was the density of the American press coverage concerning Tumblety as a suspect in the Whitechapel Murders; and then the paucity of the American press coverage of his real offences.
Therein are the smoke and mirrors.

[Gideon Fell]

Tumblety was a very clever man indeed, and he knew, damn well, that if he made up a fine old tale of how he had been arrested in connection with the Whitechapel Murders - by the pie munching and beer swilling detectives of Scotland Yard for wearing a slouch hat - then the true story of his serious offences against young men would be swamped out of the American Press by the overwhelming media interest in the Whitechapel Murders.
Just try a little experiment... see how many American newspapers ran with the story of Tumblety as a suspect in the Whitechapel Murders after he fled England; and then see how many American newspapers ran with the story of Tumblety's arrest for homosexual offences against young men.
The result is really very crucial to our understanding of exactly what was going on here.
As I said a long time ago, smoke and mirrors, but some are still fooled by Tumblety, even now.

One last point. There was a report in the American press of 18th November received from London on 17th November 1888 that Tumblety had been arrested on suspicion of the Whitechapel crimes but that the London police could not hold him for that and had 'succeeded in getting him held for trial at the Central Criminal Court under the special law passed soon after the "Modern Babylon" exposures. the police say Kumblety [sic] is the man's right name...' So this sort of puts the lie to 'Cap'n Jack's' theory above. Or was Tumblety bailed on the 16th and the next day cabled the American press and 'made up the fine old tale' that he had been arrested in connection with the Whitechapel murders but forgetting himself for a moment added that he was being held for homosexual offences under the 'Modern Babylon' legislation? He was already known in the US for homosexual activity anyway. Methinks that 'Cap'n Jack's' theorising is a trifle flawed here.

[Gideon Fell]

As a matter of interest the idea of Andrews being sent to America to search for the fugitive Ripper isn't new. It was first described in a book eighty years ago in 1928.



But I understand what is being said here, Tumblety was never a Ripper suspect, the American press and Tumblety made it all up, Anderson never telegraphed the US authorities for a sample of Tumblety's handwriting, and Littlechild got it all wrong - or worse still the Littlechild letter is a fake. I see the making of another conspiracy here though I'm not sure what. It's all too deep for me and I think I'll go look into the next suspect as there is nothing more to say about this one.

[Gideon Fell]

Hi GF.
This little bit of information is important in that Scotland Yard officially contacted the Toronto authorities, to ask if they would be amenable to paying for Inspector Andrews to return Roland Gideon Israel Barnett to Canada, on the 19th of November. The wheels to send Andrews to North America, therefore, were already set in motion at a time when Tumblety was still in London proving that Andrews’ trip to southern Ontario had nothing to do with Tumblety or the Whitechapel investigation.
Wolf.

The above claim is based I suppose on the following letter referenced HO 134/10 folios 116-117 from Godfrey Lushington at the Home Office to Robert Anderson at Scotland Yard.

November 23rd 1888
Sir
I am directed by the Secretary of State to acquaint you that a copy of your letter of the 19th instant relative to R.I.G. Barnett was on the 20th instant forwarded to the Colonial Office, and that their attention has today been called to the 7th Section of the Fugitive Offenders Act which provides that if not conveyed out of the United Kingdom within one month after his committal, a fugitive may apply to a Superior Court for his discharge; and to the consequent necessity of a speedy decision being arrived at as to the disposal of Barnett.
The Secretary of State has received an imtimation from the Colonial Office that the Canadian Government will at once be asked by telegraph whether they are prepared to guarantee the expenses which would be involved in the conveyance of the fugitive to Canada and which you estimate would amount to £120, and what arrangements they propose to make.
I am at the same time to call your attention to the last paragraph of the instructions issued in February 1882 which provide that steps should not be taken for the issue or execution of a warrant for the apprehension of a Fugitive Offender unless an indemnity has been obtained from the prosecutor, without instructions from the Secretary of State.
I am,
Sir
Your obedient Servant
Godfrey Lushington
R Anderson Esq
CID

This letter of the 23rd of November doesn't seem to me to show that Scotland Yard had contacted the Toronto authorities on the 19th but rather that Anderson had written to the Home Office on the 19th concerned about the fact that Barnett was still languishing in custody and asking what was to happen. This reply then shows that the Home Secretary had just received (on the 23rd) 'an intimation' from the Colonial Office that the Canadian Government would 'at once be asked by telegraph' if they would cover the cost of the conveyance of Barnett to Canada. I guess that you have translated this differently. In view of the fact that Scotland Yard had no hard evidence against Tumblety I am sure that they would never have contemplated an expensive trip to North America to locate him. But given the chance of this 'free trip' they would see the opportunity of making inquiries whilst there.

[Gideon Fell]

Hi GF.
I can’t say who originally uncovered this bit of information but I can tell you that it doesn’t appear in either the first or the paperback edition of The Lodger (or Jack the Ripper, First American Serial Killer, depending on where you live). However, it was discovered that Tumblety made a court appearance at the Old Bailey on the 20th of November at which his trail for the gross indecency charges was set for the 10th of December. The information is included in the 1996 paperback A –Z if you want to check.

The November Sessions for the jurisdiction of the Central Criminal Court opened at the Old Bailey on Monday 19th November 1888. The Central Criminal Court heard cases for trial not for bail and the date for Tumblety's appearance should have been set with his committal from the Police Court on 16th November. If Tumblety had appeared on 20th November he should have been tried and not bailed again. I think the idea arose here as Tumblety's name appears on a handwritten list of trial dates against 19 Nov 1888. It is may be significant that the date below it (10 Dec) has 'nil' written next to it. But without having other records or knowing the method of date allocation it's impossible to be sure.

[Gideon Fell]

I've had a look at the court calendars and I think I have solved what went on at the time Tumblety was bailed on the gross indecency charges. It must first be remembered that the Police Courts sat daily so there would have been no reason to hold him pending a magistrates court sitting, he could have been taken straight before the court. The Court Calendar is an assize session document not a police document. Therefore the 'Date of Warrant' column must refer to a committal warrant and not an arrest warrant. Putting this interpretation on it would mean that Tumblety actually appeared before the Police Court on Wednesday 14th November when the magistrate issued the committal warrant to trial at the Central Criminal Court in December. That would mean that Tumblety was then held in custody for two days until he could sort out his recognizances (sureties) for bail and when he gained them he returned before the court on Friday 16th November and was granted bail against his recognizances. All this seems to indicate is that he had been out of police custody since his first detention, possibly on a police bail, and returned after the usual 7 days which ties in with the issue of the warrant on 14th November.

Looking at the next offender on the court calendar, one Henry George Ginger arrested (for obtaining money by false pretences, falsifying a book and forging a receipt with intent to defraud), seems to confirm this scenario. In the 'When received into Custody' column the date of 14th September is given. In the 'Date of Warrant' column the date of 15th November is given. Obviously Ginger wasn't held in custody without a court appearance for two months and on checking The Times report on his case it can be seen that he had been released on bail against recognizances. This bail he surrendered to on 15th November and was bailed to the Central Criminal Court on 16th November by Sir A. Lusk at the Mansion House Court.

[Cap'n Jack]

Thank you, Wolf, that is what I call progress.

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Hi GF.

Wolf, where did you get the idea that Tumblety appeared at the Old Bailey on 20th November?

I can’t say who originally uncovered this bit of information but I can tell you that it doesn’t appear in either the first or the paperback edition of The Lodger (or Jack the Ripper, First American Serial Killer, depending on where you live). However, it was discovered that Tumblety made a court appearance at the Old Bailey on the 20th of November at which his trail for the gross indecency charges was set for the 10th of December. The information is included in the 1996 paperback A –Z if you want to check.

This little bit of information is important in that Scotland Yard officially contacted the Toronto authorities, to ask if they would be amenable to paying for Inspector Andrews to return Roland Gideon Israel Barnett to Canada, on the 19th of November. The wheels to send Andrews to North America, therefore, were already set in motion at a time when Tumblety was still in London proving that Andrews’ trip to southern Ontario had nothing to do with Tumblety or the Whitechapel investigation.

Wolf.

[Cap'n Jack]

Timothy, nicely done, and it is good to see someone prepared to take the time to research their subject in the manner you have done so here.
But I feel we stand on very shaky ground here, firstly because as you say, if the detaining inspector honestly felt that Tumblety was the Whitechapel Murderer, who was obviously a 'danger to the public' - I think we can safely classify the slaughter of five women as of an 'enormous' nature - then he would not have released him, would he?
But he did, didn't he?
I think what many ask us to believe here, is that Tumblety was arrested for offences of indecency, and that the police of the day said 'excuse me old chap, you didn't happen to murder five girls down old Whitechapel way in the last six months did you?'
What's the chances of that?

[timothy]

I have spent a long time looking at legal textbooks of the period to see what laws would apply to Tumblety’s situation (Thank heaven for Google Books!). Not being a lawyer, my eyes are beginning to cross. Based on what was recorded in the court record, and the legal background to that record, the following is an explanation of what Tumblety was charged with and his travel through the system.

Tumblety was arrested on November 7th on charges of gross indecency. Whether this was for one incident or four, there is no way of knowing. We can assume that he was taken to the Marlborough St. Police Station as this was the court which would later hear the case. He was arrested without a warrant. If there had been a prior warrant, it would have been listed in the Court Calendar.

Having arrested Tumblety without a warrant, the Police had three legal choices. The first was, within 24 hours of his arrest, to bring him before a court of summary jurisdiction. If that were not possible or desirable, it was up to the inspector of police whether to keep the person in custody or release the person on bail. This was not an arbitrary decision but had to be based on whether the alleged crime was “enormous,” and whether the person was a danger to others. If neither of those could be alleged, the person was entitled to bail. This could be as simple as the inspector determining the name of the person and their address. In most cases it was not necessary to put up any money. The person was told when to go to court for the hearing to determine if he should be charged. Based on the charges which are recorded, the police would have had no legal justification for holding Tumblety. Had he been held for over a week on these charges, his lawyer could have sued the police for false imprisonment.

As Stewart Evans contended, the procedure was to have a warrant issued and to have the person rearrested on the same charges prior to the hearing. The police magistrate’s court issued the warrant for Tumblety on November 14th. Tumblety was to return to the police station on that day and surrender his police bail. He would have then been held until the hearing on November 16th. At the hearing, the magistrate found that there was sufficient evidence to prosecute and set a trial date at the Queen’s Bench. At the same time, Tumblety was granted bail on the warrant by which he was arrested.


A modern, easy to read, reference for these procedures is : “Criminal Litigation” by Peter Hungerford Welch, 2004

A more contemporary reference is : “Encyclopaedia of the Laws of England with Forms and Precedents by the Most Eminent Legal Authorities, Second Edition”, 1906

[Cap'n Jack]

Thanks Dan & John for both summing up the very serious doubts that do plainly exist in regard to the unsubstantiated claims that Tumblety was ever arrested, or even questioned in regard to the Whitechapel Murders.
Tumblety was a very clever man indeed, and he knew, damn well, that if he made up a fine old tale of how he had been arrested in connection with the Whitechapel Murders - by the pie munching and beer swilling detectives of Scotland Yard for wearing a slouch hat - then the true story of his serious offences against young men would be swamped out of the American Press by the overwhelming media interest in the Whitechapel Murders.
Just try a little experiment... see how many American newspapers ran with the story of Tumblety as a suspect in the Whitechapel Murders after he fled England; and then see how many American newspapers ran with the story of Tumblety's arrest for homosexual offences against young men.
The result is really very crucial to our understanding of exactly what was going on here.
As I said a long time ago, smoke and mirrors, but some are still fooled by Tumblety, even now.

[johnnyerwin]

There are two separate lists. In the one you have queried the 'Ditto' stands for 14th November, the same date as for the entry above which relates to a George Bartlett.

Thanks Gideon, that clears up that aspect; although I'm a bit curious why there are two different lists, especially since some of the other names on these lists are different. Different categories?

I have to say though that there doesn't appear to be any solid footing here for saying that Tumblety was arrested as a suspect on the 7th. Here's how I see things here:

7th Sep - Tumblety taken into custody for something. Court calendar entry(s) made later state this is for "gross indecency".

14th Sep - Warrant Issued. Again entry in in Court Calendar entry(s) state this is in regard to "gross indecency".

16th Sep - Tumblety bailed.

So as far as "official" documentation is concerned, there is no connection with the Whitechapel Murders. The only documentation that supports that is:

- The Littlechild letter
- Some newspaper articles outside of the UK
- Tumblety's own statements

The Littlechild letter is clearly the opinion of the author, and he even clearly mentions several items that would argue against the opinion.

Although interesting, the newspaper articles cannot be counted on to be entirely acurate, especially since the UK ones don't mention this aspect. I cannot fathom a UK blackout on this topic at a time I am sure they would have been rabid for information of this sort.

Tumblety himself cannot be relied upon to tell the truth about anything, based upon the information about his entire life. He may have found it quite amusing to tell this aspect of the tale, and certainly more palatable than to explain the real charges laid against him in London. He wasn't claiming to be the ripper from what I see.

As far as the period from the 7th to the 14th is concerned there doesn't appear to be a lot of information available, unless there's some items I'm not aware. Was he in custody that whole time? Was he out on Police Bail? Was there charges on the 12th? Those all appear to be theories, and certainly plausible, but without proof they cannot be confirmed. Again, if there's some other proof available it would help clear that up for a few people here including myself.

Cheers