Tumblety at the Old Bailey

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

That "A hearing was held on November 20th at the Old Bailey, and the trial postponed until December 10th" has been repeated ad nauseum.

Where is the evidence to support this statement?

Regards,

Simon

[mklhawley]

Hi Simon,

In Ripper Notes number 24, page 27, Vanderlinden writes:

On 20 November, Tumblety had a hearing at Old Bailey which scheduled his trial on charges of gross indecency and indecent assault for the 10th of December.

My guess is he knows. Hopefuly he replies.

Sincerely,

Mike

[mklhawley]

Hi Simon,

From the Marlborough Street Court records, we know Tumblety posted bail on November 16, 1888. The following is from the Central Criminal Court:




This document shows that Tumblety was transferred by Magistrate Hannay at Marlborough Street Court to the Central Criminal Court. Interestingly, the date with Tumblety is November 19. Even though the marlborough Street Court was in session daily, this shows that the Central Criminal Court was in session periodically. The 'Nil' for December 10 seems to mean there was no one with a last name beginning with a 'T' set for court. We do know that Tumblety absconded, or jumped bail, because he did not want to face the gross indecency music. It seems that the 19 November date was a pre-trial session in order to set the court date. If it wasn't going to be December 10, then the next date seemed to be in January 1889. Am I interpreting this correctly?

Sincerely,

Mike

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mike,

Thank you.

I don't want to say too much because I have just read the proofs of a soon-to-be-published article [not written by me] which makes an extremely sound case for Tumblety being held on remand at the time of the Millers Court murder.

Your dates are correct.

The November Sessions at the Central Criminal Court opened on 19th November. 75 cases were heard, some of which were adjourned until the December Sessions which opened on 10th December, by which time Tumblety was tucked up in New York.

Francis Tumblety did not appear during the November sessions.

As there is no documentary evidence to support the contention that "A hearing was held on November 20th at the Old Bailey and the trial postponed until December 10th" it can reasonably be assumed that after being bailed on Friday 16th Tumblety flew the coop during the weekend of 17/18th November 1888.

This makes perfect sense. Tumblety would have had two days' head-start on the authorities. By Monday 19th November, when it was realised he was a "no show" at the Old Bailey, he had already arrived in France on his way to Le Havre.

Regards,

Simon

[mklhawley]

So, on the 17/18 weekend, he was not at his 'usual haunts'. I find it extremely intriguing that he chose the same method of exit out of England (Dover instead of his usual Liverpool) that numerous Irish Nationalists used, since the French tended to be simpathetic to them.

Mike

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mike,

Tumblety may not have gone via Dover [to Calais].

He could have used the daily service from Folkestone to Boulogne [an idea supported by Littlechild]—

9.40 am [Charing Cross] – 11.35 am [Folkestone] – 1.55 pm [Boulogne] – 5.57 pm [Paris, Gare du Nord] – 6.30 pm Paris [Gare St. Lazare] to Havre [via Rouen] arrive 11.05 pm.

There was also a direct ferry from Southampton to Le Havre, Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays –

9.45 pm [Waterloo] – 12 midnight [Southampton] – 8.30 am [Havre] including a 2 hour wait in the river Seine.

Also, on Fridays and Mondays, Cunard ran a service from Liverpool to Le Havre.

Regards,

Simon

[mklhawley]

Hi Simon,

Folkstone certainly does fit better.

Mike

[Jonathan H]

I will read that article with great interest, Simon.

I am just perplexed as to why, if Tumblety was in a cell during the Kelly murder, he did not say so in his 1889 interview?

That he did not say: I had an iron-clad alibi supplied by those very same dyspeptic, stale-beer swilling, thick-skulled pot-pie devourers!

I realise that an individual can say and not say what he chooses, of course.

[Cogidubnus]

I am just perplexed as to why, if Tumblety was in a cell during the Kelly murder, he did not say so in his 1889 interview?

That he did not say: I had an iron-clad alibi supplied by those very same dyspeptic, stale-beer swilling, thick-skulled pot-pie devourers!

I get the impression that he was revelling in his own sudden self-importance, and didn't really want to say yea or nay...it was his 15 minutes and he wanted to make the most of it...

May be wrong, but in my mind it feels true of the man...

Best wishes

Dave

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jonathan,

Tumblety revelled in notoriety, so perhaps he didn't want to put the dampers on his recent fanfare of dubious publicity.

I think you'll enjoy the article.

There's more to the Tumblety episode than meets the eye.

Regards,

Simon

[Jonathan H]

Yes a headline-seeker at one time, but I am not sure if he was still was by his late middle-age.

Of course, another possibility is that if Tumblety revealed that he had an iron clad alibi for the most horrific Whitechapel murder then it would beg the question -- from the American press or maybe from this reporter -- as to why he was of such interest to the English police if the Kelly murder 'cleared' him?

I am not putting this very well as I am quite unwell.

I am trying to say that if the experienced confidence man quashes the Ripper tale too convincingly then it could somehow expose the homosexual charges as the only cause of his flight from bail, which were well known to the American press.

Something like that?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jonathan,

Something like that.

Get well soon or I'll send Dr. Tumblety to see you.

Regards,

Simon

[mklhawley]

I get the impression that he was revelling in his own sudden self-importance, and didn't really want to say yea or nay...it was his 15 minutes and he wanted to make the most of it...

May be wrong, but in my mind it feels true of the man...

Best wishes

Dave

Hi Cogidubnus,

To a point I agree with you. At that particular moment, this narcissist knew Scotland Yard had nothing on him and he probably enjoyed the moment, but Jonathan is correct. If you look at Tumblety history, the only time he was seeking notoriety was for business, and it worked. In his older days, he preferred his public persona as being a prominant citizen, i.e., an eminent physician. Being implicated in the Whitechapel murders hurt this persona and the later interview clearly demonstrates this.

Another huge concern for Tumblety, I believe, is that the gross indecency case could not be separated from this issue, and it is very clear Tumblety hated people knowing about his private affairs. He always publically denied his taste in young men.

'till the article comes out!

Sincerely,

Mike

[Wickerman]

Another huge concern for Tumblety, I believe, is that the gross indecency case could not be separated from this issue, and it is very clear Tumblety hated people knowing about his private affairs. He always publically denied his taste in young men.

'till the article comes out!

That is along the lines I was thinking. That should Tumblety have said, "I couldn't have been the Ripper because I was in the slammer at the time", then the question of "why?" would have been asked by some investigative reporters, and his dirty little secret would have been out.

Not that it would stay a secret forever, but he may not want to expedite its release?
I tend to agree that he basked in the limelight of being "arrested at the time" of the murders. Such a circumstance is readily manipulated in to being "arrested in connection with" the murders.

Regards, Jon S.

[Hunter]

I don't know if Tumblety was basking in the limelight here. He was caught between a rock and a hard place with this situation and had to do something about it. He played the lesser of two evils card. Being considered as a suspect in the Whitechapel murders - especially if he knew he was innocent - would be better than extensive coverage about his secret life - of which he was guilty.

He could survive the Ripper notoriety if he knew there was no real evidence against him; he could not publicly survive the other if the details got out. The sensationalism of the 'Ripper' murders and any perceived linkage to them would guarantee the 'real story' would get washed away by it.

And it worked. But he probably would have preferred no notoriety on either count if he could have avoided it.