British Paper Reports Tall Man Attacks Woman

[mklhawley]

Greeting all,

The Daily Telegraph reported a tall, thin man attempted to stab a woman on Monday night, November 12,1888, but ran away once the police quickly arrived.

The Daily Telegraph, SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1888

EXTRAORDINARY AFFAIR. - It has just transpired that a young woman, named Annie Murphy, living at Sanderstead-road, Croydon, was stopped on Monday night last, when in the Brighton-road, near her home, by a tall, thin man, who suddenly put his arm round her. She struggled and screamed, and a policeman who was near ran at once to the spot. By the time that he arrived, however, the man had got away, and the young woman only complaining that he had embraced her, the matter was not followed up. Later in the evening, however, she found that her dress was cut, and that she had been stabbed in the breast. She immediately went to a doctor, and informed the police, who are now searching for her assailant. The woman says she did not feel the stab at the time.

Interestingly, a warrant went out for Francis Tumblety’s arrest two days later (November 14, 1888) on a Wednesday.

Sincerely,

Mike

[mklhawley]

Here is a second incident in the British papers about a tall man:

Echo, London, U.K., 10 November 1888
LONDON, SATURDAY, NOV. 10.
…Late last night hundreds of people came surging down Commercial-street round a posse of police who guarded a tall, rather vigorous-looking man, who looked flushed and defiant, and was evidently strongly believed by the mob to be the assassin. It went from mouth to mouth that he blood on his clothes. The crowd in the wildest excitement rushed down to the station, but of course were excluded. What degree of importance was to be attached to the arrest could not then be known. The man was given into custody by some women as one who had accosted them on the previous night, and whose conduct was suspicious. The prisoner was, however, released - so the police announce - during to-day, his statements being verified. The second arrest was made in the small hours of the mourning, when a man, apparently a foreigner, was brought to Commercial-street, on suspicion. He was still detained this morning, but no importance is attached to the apprehension, and eventually he, too, was discharged.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Folks,
Now who do we know that was tall and thin..... not 6'7 surely?
Regards Richard.

[mklhawley]

New York World (U.S.A.)
19 November 1888

HE IS "ECCENTRIC" DR. TWOMBLETY
The Amercian Suspected of the Whitechapel Crimes Well Known Here.
A special London despatch to THE WORLD yesterday morning announced the arrest of a man in connection with the Whitechapel crimes, who gave his name as Dr. Kumblety, of New York. He could not be held on suspicion, but the police succeeded in getting him held under the special law passed soon after the "Modern Babylon" exposures...


Well, the source for this particular article, one of the first to comment upon Tumblety, came from London AND it clearly states Tumblety was a JTR suspect. A warrant was issued (five days prior to this report (14 Nov)) for Tumblety two days after one of these incidents. Nowadays, a judge issuing a warrant requires a substantial amount of evidence. Would the warrent have been issued on mere conjecture in 1888? Also, Tumblety was arrested five times for gross indecency (July 27, Aug 31, Oct 14, Nov 2, & Nov 7) prior to this warrent. Why would they have released him on Nov 7 and then issue a warrent to arrest him for gross indecency a sixth time? Were they finally sick of dealing with him? In view of the information given by the London source of this article, the warrent seems to be for JTR stuff.

Regardless if the British papers chose to publish about Tumblety or not, it came from London and not from someone in the U.S. creating a sensational story for the American press. As I have reprinted above, British papers did report incidents of a "tall" man they believed may have had possible connections to the Whitechapel murders. At the same time of the murders a "tall" American quack doctor was on the streets of Whitechapel.

Sincerely,

Mike

[c.d.]

Hi Mike,

I may be wrong but I don't think that Tumblety was arrested five times on charges of gross indecency. I think those dates simply represent the dates when the indecencies were alleged to have taken place.

c.d.

[mklhawley]

Hi Mike,

I may be wrong but I don't think that Tumblety was arrested five times on charges of gross indecency. I think those dates simply represent the dates when the indecencies were alleged to have taken place.

c.d.

Hi c.d.,

This is an excellent point that needs to be addressed. Here’s the correspondence between Simon Wood and SPE on a different thread (http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=3751&page=2) . I am reading it as different incidents. What do you think?

Hi Stewart,

Happy New Year. Good to see you back on the boards.

Could you please help clear up a detail? I have put this question to a number of people, but to no avail.

I have seen the Court Calendar listing Tumblety's four acts of gross indecency, but what is our source for the actual dates of these offences?

Friday, July 27, 1888 — Albert Fisher
Friday, August 31st 1888 — Arthur Brice
Sunday, October 14 1888 — James Crowley
Friday, November 2nd 1888 — John Doughty

Regards,
Simon

…and then SPE’s reply


The source for the dates, and wording, of these charges is the actual Tumblety charge sheet a copy of which was obtained from the PRO (Chancery Lane) by Andy Aliffe and of which I have a copy. And a Happy New Year to you. I shall not be staying 'back on the boards'.

SPE

Sincerely,

Mike

[c.d.]

Hi Mike,

To me it looks like he was arrested once and charged with four counts of indecency. The dates given are the dates the indecencies are alleged to have occured. He would have been extremely dumb and extremely horny to keep being charged over and over again.

c.d.

[mklhawley]

Hi Mike,

To me it looks like he was arrested once and charged with four counts of indecency. The dates given are the dates the indecencies are alleged to have occured. He would have been extremely dumb and extremely horny to keep being charged over and over again.

c.d.

That does make more sense. I'm now curious as to how these dates got into the hands of the officials. Did the males involved immediately report an offense and officials did little until the fifth occurance? Did they at least question him after each occurance? Was the last one publicized, so the four other men came later to finally report them?

Mike

[mklhawley]

Check out a paper from New Zealand:


Bay Of Plenty Times, 16 November, 1888

Whitechapel Murders
Important Arrest.-“Jack, the Ripper.”
LONDON, Nov. 14.-The police have made what they consider an important arrest. The prisoner, an individual who has all the appearances of a well-dressed man about town, is believed to be identical with the man observed in the neighbourhood of the scenes of the murder immediately preceding the time when the deeds were committed. The police, and other people, continue to receive letters, signed “Jack the Ripper,” admitting the murders, and threatening more shortly.

This matches the date of the warrant.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Dr. John Watson]

That does make more sense. I'm now curious as to how these dates got into the hands of the officials. Did the males involved immediately report an offense and officials did little until the fifth occurance? Did they at least question him after each occurance? Was the last one publicized, so the four other men came later to finally report them?

Mike

Mike, I believe Tumblety was under surveilance for a considerable time (probably because of his Irish sympathies), during which time officers noted his various encounters with young men. At some point, they probably interviewed four of these men and secured written statements, possibly threatening them with arrest if they didn't cooperate. Armed with the evidence, they arrested Tumblety and charged him with two separate offences in each of the four cases, likely hoping to secure high enough bond to keep him behind bars awhile. What prompted the final decision to place Tumblety in custody may have been a simple desire to crack down on homosexuals - but no one believes that. The most reasonable theory is that he was indeed suspected in the Ripper murders, and the arrest was perhaps necessitated by the fear that he was about to leave the country.

For what it's worth, I don't think Tumblety had anything to do with the Ripper murders.

John

[mklhawley]

John,

This would be an awesome movie!

Sincerely,

Mike

[spyglass]

Hi All,
Going back to the original thread, Am I right in thinking Ostrog was 5 feet 11 inches and foreign ( russian ) Thats quite tall.

Mcnaghten claimed that he was cruel to women and carried knives with him.

just a thought.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Spy. Ostrog was tall, but he was in France, so he could not have been the suspect described in these reports. Macnaghten was mistaken about the cruelty and carrying of knives.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[spyglass]

Hi Tom,

I did not know this, Is this fairly new imfo thats come to light ?

What I remember reading fairly recently, was that in OCT 1888, Ostrog was o the run,( did't mention France ) and that Mcnaghten had imfo on him that he kept to himself.

My reference was The Mamoth Book of JTR, which I dont have to hand right now.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Spy. In 1997 Philip Sugden discovered that Ostrog was - beyond doubt - in prison in France during the run of the Whitechapel murders. It was Druitt that Macnaghten claimed to have private info about. I personally believe that Ostrog was never a suspect and that his details were confused with my suspect, Charles Le Grand.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott