Tumblety's Bail

[David Orsam]

Can someone who knows please tell me the primary source of the information that Tumblety's bail was (a) set at £300 and (b) with two sureties.

[Mayerling]

Originally Posted by Howard Brown View Post
Unrelated to the current discussion, but related to the New York World.

I have located an edition of the December 2nd, 1888 NYWorld which is far larger than the December 2nd edition here on Casebook.

As I mentioned over yonder, if someone would like to transcribe the one I found, please feel free to do so and give it to Stephen to put in the NYWorld archive.

The article is here :

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread....d=1#post261297

Hi David,

Howard Brown posted this link from the JTR forum relating to a full article from the New York World of Dec. 2, 1888, and it included the article. In it he mentions two sureties posting $1,500.00 in bail - which in 1888 was the equivalent of 300 pounds. The article does not include the names of the two sureties.

Jeff

[David Orsam]

Thanks Jeff. So the notion that Tumblety's bail was £300 with two sureties evidently derives from an unsourced American newspaper report dated some fifteen days after Tumblety was actually granted bail; a report which does not even refer to a sum of £300 but which, to be calculated, has to be converted from US dollars at an assumed rate of $5 to the pound, and one that does not even identify the two individuals who supposedly provided sureties.

My surprise here is that Trevor Marriott asked me in the "Was Tumblety in jail…" thread: "how do you then explain on Nov 16 the records show him being granted bail with sureties" yet it seems that the "records" show no such thing and he was relying on an uncorroborated newspaper report for his information as to sureties. And when he told me in the same thread that "The identity of Tumblety's two sureties is unknown", his reference to "two sureties" could only have come from that same newspaper report.

And when Simon Wood said in the same thread: "If Tumblety could have been released on his own recognizance, why did Mr. Hannay insist on two independent sureties totalling £300.00?" he was relying entirely on a newspaper report which was probably written by the very same London correspondent of the New York World who wrote on 17 November that Tumblety had originally been arrested on suspicion of the Whitechapel murders (and indeed this claim is repeated in his very report for the New York World which mentions the bail figure of £300) . Yet, as I understand it, Mr Wood, while happy to accept the figure of £300 bail, refuses to accept that Tumblety was ever arrested on suspicion of the murders.

Puzzling - but I'm sure the reason for all of this has nothing to do with the fact that a high bail and sureties fits in with the way Messrs Marriott and Wood like to view the events of November 1888, whereas the notion that Tumblety was first arrested on suspicion of being Jack the Ripper does not.

[Ausgirl]

But he -was- arrested as a suspect.. yes?

[David Orsam]

If you are asking me Ausgirl, I don't know, but the London Correspondent for the New York World, who seems to have been rather well informed, said he was (and the London Evening Post, possibly from an independent source, agreed); and, as it was reported that over 300 men were arrested on suspicion of being the Whitechapel murderer in the period to 3 November 1888, then I can't see why not, and can't think of any good reason to doubt it, especially considering that it makes sense of why Tumblety ended up in custody.

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

You find me one scrap of rock solid evidence in support of the contention that Tumblety was ever arrested on suspicion of being Jack the Ripper and I will tell you the exact amount of his bail on charges of gross indecency, the names of his bondsmen and the bank upon which their two promissory notes were drawn.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

Simon, the point I was making was that the evidence for Tumblety being arrested on suspicion of being Jack the Ripper is the exact same (if not better) as the evidence for his bail being £300.

And, on that note, you already told me that his bail on the gross indecency charge was £300 when you said to me: "If Tumblety could have been released on his own recognizance, why did Mr. Hannay insist on two independent sureties totalling £300.00".

If you now want to tell me that Mr Hannay did NOT in fact insist on two independent sureties totalling £300.00, and that you were mistaken in suggesting he had, then please feel free to go ahead.

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

After you. I insist.

Tumblety's bail was £300.00. The US press rounded up the dollar conversion.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

Which goes back to my first post. What is the evidence that Tumblety's bail was £300?

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

Copies of the promissory notes.

But sight of those is contingent upon your watertight evidence that Tumblety was ever arrested on suspicion of being Jack the Ripper.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

So let me get this straight. You are saying that the primary source of the information that Tumblety's bail was set at £300 is some promissory notes? But I can't see them to establish that they actually exist, and do substantiate your claim, unless I enter into some sort of deal with you?

Have I got that right?

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

Yep!

You're the one who's batting on about Tumblety being arrested on suspicion of being Jack the Ripper.

Show me yours and I'll show you mine.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

You're the one who's batting on about Tumblety being arrested on suspicion of being Jack the Ripper.

You are quite wrong. Far from batting on about this, when Ausgirl asked me in this very thread if Tumblety was arrested as a suspect (post #4) I said (post #5) "I don't know".

You are the one denying the strength of the evidence that suggests he was.

But that's not really the issue here. What I find very strange is that I posted to you in #546 of the "Was Tumblety in jail..." thread:

"...the £300 figure is, I believe, derived from a later, unconfirmed, newspaper report and not from any official contemporary documentation, but invite correction from you if I am wrong."

You went very quiet and did not respond.

Then when you posted in this thread at #6 you neither answered my question in #1 nor contradicted Jeff's response in #2 so I don't know what game you are playing.

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

So the strength of evidence suggests Tumblety was arrested on suspicion of being Jack the Ripper, but you don't know if he was.

And that's not the issue?

See you around.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

So the strength of evidence suggests Tumblety was arrested on suspicion of being Jack the Ripper, but you don't know if he was.

Exactly. For the reasons explained in my reply to Ausgirl earlier in this thread (and to you elsewhere).

And that's not the issue?

No, this is a thread about Tumblety's bail. A subject about which you have hardly been forthcoming.

See you around.

Bye then.