The Men Who Arrested Tumblety

[David Orsam]

As we know, the indictment of Tumblety has the names of the witnesses against him on the back, including the names of the two officers who must have arrested him for the indecency offences:

"Frank Froest P.C. C.I.D.
Walter Dinnie P.S. C.I.D."

Strangely, the information is incorrect. Throughout all of 1888 both Froest and Dinnie were Detective-Sergeants within the Commissioner's Office, or Central Office, (C.O.). Froest was not a constable as indicated on the reverse of the indictment.

They might not have received any financial reward for arresting Tumblety (although Froest was awarded 7s 6d on 6 December 1888 for an unknown reason) but it certainly did their careers no harm. They were both recommended for promotion to Inspector in December 1888 and PO of 27 December 1888 (as below) instructed them to attend on 9th January for an educational examination.

Dinnie passed and was promoted to Inspector (2nd class) on 26 January 1889. Froest was not so lucky this time round but he took the exam again in September and was himself eventually promoted to Inspector.

[GUT]

Intereseting thanks David.

[mklhawley]

Besides Froest and Dinnie being present at the indictment, looks like young Albert Fisher was. -Mike

[Trevor Marriott]

As we know, the indictment of Tumblety has the names of the witnesses against him on the back, including the names of the two officers who must have arrested him for the indecency offences:

"Frank Froest P.C. C.I.D.
Walter Dinnie P.S. C.I.D."

Strangely, the information is incorrect. Throughout all of 1888 both Froest and Dinnie were Detective-Sergeants within the Commissioner's Office, or Central Office, (C.O.). Froest was not a constable as indicated on the reverse of the indictment.

They might not have received any financial reward for arresting Tumblety (although Froest was awarded 7s 6d on 6 December 1888 for an unknown reason) but it certainly did their careers no harm. They were both recommended for promotion to Inspector in December 1888 and PO of 27 December 1888 (as below) instructed them to attend on 9th January for an educational examination.

Dinnie passed and was promoted to Inspector (2nd class) on 26 January 1889. Froest was not so lucky this time round but he took the exam again in September and was himself eventually promoted to Inspector.

So now we have gone from the statement made by some that Tumblelty was arrested for being the Ripper and then arrested on the indecency charges, because of incriminating letters found in his possesion from victims when arrested for that offence.

To me the indictment clearly shows that was not the case. Two police witness suggest they had gathered evidence from a specific police operation. Not withstanding that the police did not interview suspects after arrest in those days.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[mklhawley]

Arrested on suspicion for the Ripper murders on or before November 7, then the investigatioin by Froest and Dinnie began. By the date of the indictment one week later, young Fisher is available to Hannay.

Sorry Trevor.

[Robert]

Could someone please explain the pencilled letters beside Fisher's name?

[mklhawley]

Could someone please explain the pencilled letters beside Fisher's name?

Hi Robert,

Here's Joe Chetcuti's article explaining everything:

http://ripperwriters.aforumfree.com/h6-the-indictment

The foreman, William Sugg, put his initials in front of anyone he saw. This clearly occurred on November 14, not November 7.

Mike

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mike,

The Grand Jury did not convene until 19th November 1888.

Regards,

Simon

[Robert]

Thanks Mike!

[Trevor Marriott]

Arrested on suspicion for the Ripper murders on or before November 7, then the investigatioin by Froest and Dinnie began. By the date of the indictment one week later, young Fisher is available to Hannay.

Sorry Trevor.

Here we go again heads against brick walls. parachutes failing to open

The system was such that for him to have been arrested for the indecency offences the police would have had to had there whole case ready before going to a magistrate to ask for a warrant to arrest. That would have been before Nov 7th the date of his arrest.

As to the indictment that would not have been drawn up until after the committal and I think what is visible is from the old bailey records

So when was he ever arrested for the ripper murders where is your "PRIMARY" evidence to back up what you say?

Where is the corroboration that incriminating letters were found on him, all we have is an outdated secondary newspaper article inferring that, and then we dont know if it related to the victims in the indecency cases?

Time to open that parchute

[mklhawley]

Here we go again heads against brick walls. parachutes failing to open

The system was such that for him to have been arrested for the indecency offences the police would have had to had there whole case ready before going to a magistrate to ask for a warrant to arrest. That would have been before Nov 7th the date of his arrest.

As to the indictment that would not have been drawn up until after the committal and I think what is visible is from the old bailey records

So when was he ever arrested for the ripper murders where is your "PRIMARY" evidence to back up what you say?

Where is the corroboration that incriminating letters were found on him, all we have is an outdated secondary newspaper article inferring that, and then we dont know if it related to the victims in the indecency cases?

Time to open that parchute

Here we go again, Trevor's got his head somewhere else. The case was in front of Hannay on November 14 and November 16. He was taken into custody on November 7th.

Sorry Trevor.

[Trevor Marriott]

Here we go again, Trevor's got his head somewhere else. The case was in front of Hannay on November 14 and November 16. He was taken into custody on November 7th.

Sorry Trevor.

Well now tell me something I dont know !

[mklhawley]

Well now tell me something I dont know !

Maybe the fact that you reject evidence that doesn't fit your biased agenda. Oh, but you do know that.

[David Orsam]

So now we have gone from the statement made by some that Tumblelty was arrested for being the Ripper and then arrested on the indecency charges, because of incriminating letters found in his possesion from victims when arrested for that offence.

Trevor, my post that you quoted in full has not gone from anywhere to anywhere else. I made a wholly uncontroversial statement that Tumblety was arrested by Dinnie/Froest on indecency charges which must be the case - someone certainly arrested Tumblety on this charge and one or both of Dinnie/Froest is/are the obvious candidate(s). I deliberately left out anything controversial about a possible prior JTR arrest because it's not relevant to the topic of this thread.

[David Orsam]

Two police witness suggest they had gathered evidence from a specific police operation

Trevor, that is simply not true and I don't know why you continue to make unsubstantiated statements of this nature on the board.

I have previously mentioned the arrest by Inspector Reid and PC Dolden of George Bartlett in Whitechapel, on 12 November 1888, on suspicion of being the Whitechapel murderer but then, following a search of his locked bag, he was charged with sacrilege (or stealing from a church).

Below is the equivalent indictment of Bartlett which shows two police witnesses (Reid and Dolden). We know for a fact there was no specific police operation to arrest Bartlett.

Incidentally, I set out in the appropriate thread what I believed to be the circumstances behind the arrest of Tumblety and your only response was to post an unsubstantiated comment about indecency hearings being in camera.