Metropolitan Police view of Tumblety today

[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]

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

[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.

[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]

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]

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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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 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?

[Gideon Fell]

No gents, you have convinced me that Tumblety not only wasn't the Ripper - he wasn't even a suspect. Time to move on to my next suspect in my never ending quest to solve this case.

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.

Well my piratical friend, shiver me timbers, the American press report of 18th November is worded:

'The police have succeeded in getting held for trial at the Central Criminal Court under the special law passed soon after the "Modern Babylon" exposures."

The 'special law' part of the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1885 was Section 11 of the Act relating to offences between males (that were not previously a statutory offence) and known as 'the Labouchere amendment.' So the American papers obviously knew exactly what offences were involved and were reporting his previous homosexual activites before Tumblety set foot on the dock at New York. The wording of the initial report also makes it clear that they thought that he was still being held on the 17th. I must assume that you are stating that all the American press reports from 18th November until Tumblety's return on 2nd December were 'fed' to them by Tumblety himself. He really must have been busy in the telegraph office.

Anyway, as my cannon raked bows dip towards the choppy waves of derision and contempt I raise a white flag and shout "Quarter! I am done for, enough, throw me a line."

[rjpalmer]

"I must assume that you are stating that all the American press reports from 18th November until Tumblety's return on 2nd December were 'fed' to them by Tumblety himself. He really must have been busy in the telegraph office."

And a telegraph office located aboard a steamship no less, complete with radar and radio communication circa 1888. And all accomplished while Tumblety was hiding in his cabin feigning sea sickness.

One of the many problems with Dan Norder's never ending 'post modern' interpretations is that the boys of the Special Branch (of which Littlechild was operational head) had a deep contempt for the press. Dolly Williamson once said 'a reporter will hardly get courtesy, let alone information at Scotland Yard.'

The strange idea that the man atop Section D would wait at the docks in Southampton for the latest mail boat arrivals, so he could find out from the New York Times who were the suspects in Scotland Yard's own investigation could only be the misguided theory from one of our modern 'Ripperologists.' If this the direction post-modernism is going, give me Forbes Winslow!

From Wolf Vanderlinden, Ripper Notes #24

"Chief Crowley himself stated in the S.F. papers that he decided to investigate Tumblety when he first heard from US press reports that he was a Ripper suspect on the 18th of November."

Uh, the US press report that appeared in the S.F. Chronicle on 18 November was a U.S. paper, but it was not instigated in the U.S. It was from a LONDON correspondent to the NY World (ie., stationed in London) who wrote a long piece on Sir George Arthur, and then mentioned "Kumblety's" case in passing.

I dont' know how many times I need to point this out to Dan Norder before it sinks in. The original flow of information did NOT come from NYC as he keeps trying to insinuate; it came from a reporter stationed in London. The NY press then picked up on the story because, quite obviously, Tumblety was at one time a well-known figure in that city. The post-modern chronology does not work, nor is it the least bit credible.

In short, not only does Dan have the tail wagging the dog, he has the dog standing on a horse with the cart behind it.

Further, Vanderlinden is not being precise. 'Chief Crowley himself' did not say this in the SF papers. He is not quoted; he is not even paraphrased unless by implication. The S.F. Chronicle certainly implied that this is the way it went 'down,' but other papers were more circumspect. The official documentation between San Francisco and Scotland Yard has not survived. Nor has the official documentation between Scotland Yard and San Francisco survived. This has all the appearance of a 'how our local Chief Crowley solved the Whitechapel Murders' story, rather than any accurate account of the communications between London and San Francisco. Communication between London and the U.S. West coast was no easy task in 1888. The same telegraph lines would have been used by both the press and the poilce, and it is easy to imagine that the local reporters got 'wind' of Crowley's investigation at the same time that the initial press reports were coming over the wire. Without the official documentation at our disposal, extreme caution should be used before insisting that these reports are accuate. Both Norder and Vanderlinden seem to have become 'fixated' on the difference between the way it was reported in New York and the way it was reported in San Francisco, but have not seemed to consider the likelihood that neither report was particularly accurate.

As any student of the case knows, or should know, there is often a serious contradiction between what is initially reported in the press, and what actually went on 'behind the scenes.' Study the MET files side-by-side with initial reports for a good lesson in how this works. Vanderlinden is entitled to his interpretation, but it is no kosher to give official sanction to what is only a press report.

Futher, it is obvious from reading those reports that Chief Crowley didn't even have a clear idea who the hell Tumblety was. He vaguely remembered someone named 'Stanley' and thought he was from Australia. It beggars belief that he would see 'Kumblety' in one paragraph in the paper on Nov 18th and then unilaterally launch an extensive investigation, including finding an abandoned bank account that he couldn't have known existed. It almost never works that way. Anderson, in all likelihood, telegraphed Crowley and the press jumped to conclusions once the press reports hit. The intial reports from London said they had confirmed 'Kumblety's' identity from papers found on him. Tumblety's sister lived in Vallejo, California, which is on San Francisco Bay. This could easily explain why Crowley was contacted for more information.

[Gideon Fell]

THank-ee for that Mr. Palmer Sir, you have restored my faith a bit in my own ideas but I am not so well read as yourself on the American reports which must have originated in London before the 18th November. Surely you must be tempting the wrath of the horde of piratical posters above who wait in the wings to pounce on my every word. I am ill-equipped to cope with it and fain would shelter from the mocking fire of Cap'n Jack. I am already sailing for waters new.

[Cap'n Jack]

RJP
Obviously the reports of Tumblety's arrest in London emanated from London.
Where else... the moon?
However you are being quite shifty and deceptive here in leading us to believe that there is no record of the cable exchange between Chief Crowly of the SFPD and Anderson of Scotland Yard, for there is, the report in the 'Daily Evening Bulletin' - a San Francisco newpaper that actually interviewed Chief Crowly - of 23rd November 1888 which clearly reports that Crowly cabled Anderson on the 19th November 1888, after he had read the report on the 18th November 1888; and then he heard back from Anderson on the 22nd November 1888.
I reproduce the report below for your education and hopeful elucidation.