Certificate of Indictment

[David Orsam]

Within CRIM 8/6 at the National Archives I found an Old Bailey Certificate of Indictment dated 20 December 1888, said to have been "issued" a week later. My transcript and the image (with the most interesting bit in my opinion highlighted in bold, although others may have a different view) is below:

Central Criminal Court to wit. These are to certify that [short caption] on Monday the 19th day of November 1888 Francis Tumblety was and stands indicted for that he did unlawfully commit certain acts of gross indecency with certain male persons to wit with Albert Fisher, Arthur Brice, James Crowley and John Doughty and for indecently assaulting the same male persons. To which Indictment the said Francis Tumblety hath not appeared or pleaded. And that afterwards to wit at a like session held on the 10th day of December in the same year certain recognizances before then entered into by the said Francis Tumblety and his Sureties conditional for the personal appearance of the said Francis Tumblety to surrender and take his trial upon the said Indictment were forfeited and ordered to be estreated the said Francis Tumblety not having appeared or surrendered in accordance with the requirements of the said recognizances.

Dated this 20th day of December 1888
Edward James Read
Clerk of the said Court

Issued 27/12/88

[El White Chap]

The issue with Tumblety as a suspect for me has always been this...

How many homosexual serial killers have there been who've chosen to target victims who are only female?

Answers on the back of a postcard please.

[Robert]

This message is from Joe Chetcuti:







Congratulations to David Orsam for doing tremendous work this year.




The indictment was declared a True Bill on Monday November, 19, 1888. Tumblety's hearing at the Old Bailey was the following day, Nov 20th. This Certificate of Indictment that David has just discovered is informing us that Tumblety "hath not appeared or pleaded" to the indictment. Is this Certificate of Indictment telling us that Tumblety was not physically present at the Nov 20th hearing?

[mklhawley]

Outstanding find, David!

Sincerely,

Mike

[mklhawley]

The issue with Tumblety as a suspect for me has always been this...

How many homosexual serial killers have there been who've chosen to target victims who are only female?

Answers on the back of a postcard please.

Wrong thread El White Chap. This is for an excellent find. The problem with this argument, though, is your premise of "homosexual serial killers". This is only true for sado-sexual serial killers and according to the FBI there are multiple serial motives. The motives for Tumblety being JTR would not have been sado-sexual, therefore, this argument is irrelevant. If you want to know more, send me a message and I can send you out the appropriate material.

[GUT]

Well done David.

But why do you find the part you highlighted interesting, t seems pretty standard copperplate.

[Jonathan H]

Well done, David!

Once more R. J. Palmer's thesis (The "Inspector Andrews Revisisted" trilogy) has received confirmation in a primary source.

By the way, can you go to the archives of the "The Daily Mail" for the year 1899 and locate the original of "The Whitechurch Murders: Solution of a London Mystery" and wrap this all up once and for all.

[GUT]

Well done David.

But why do you find the part you highlighted interesting, t seems pretty standard copperplate.

Think I've got it now.

[GUT]

This message is from Joe Chetcuti:







Congratulations to David Orsam for doing tremendous work this year.




The indictment was declared a True Bill on Monday November, 19, 1888. Tumblety's hearing at the Old Bailey was the following day, Nov 20th. This Certificate of Indictment that David has just discovered is informing us that Tumblety "hath not appeared or pleaded" to the indictment. Is this Certificate of Indictment telling us that Tumblety was not physically present at the Nov 20th hearing?

No it is saying he wasn't present on 10th December.

[Mayerling]

Great work David.

Jeff

[Scott Nelson]

By the way, can you go to the archives of the "The Daily Mail" for the year 1899 and locate the original of "The Whitechurch Murders: Solution of a London Mystery" and wrap this all up once and for all.

You should do this Jonathan, with David's assistance.

[Jonathan H]

Dear Scott

There's a documentary in the works about my 'case disguised' theory and the bombshell new evidence my researcher found (new evidence which has delayed publication, but not for long) so I will be back in the UK later this year.

I will try and track down a few potential leads. Even some kind of ledger which simply registered the arrival of the Vicar's article, as coming from a Charles Druitt, would be enough.

Except for many who post here, of course, where it would mean nothing.

[GUT]

Dear Scott

There's a documentary in the works about my 'case disguised' theory and the bombshell new evidence my researcher found (new evidence which has delayed publication, but not for long) so I will be back in the UK later this year.

I will try and track down a few potential leads. Even some kind of ledger which simply registered the arrival of the Vicar's article, as coming from a Charles Druitt, would be enough.

Except for many who post here, of course, where it would mean nothing.

Prove that and it'd be darn close.

[Errata]

How did you take a picture of this without losing a hand to the stalwart Guardian Librarian?

I touched a map once and got yanked away by an arm extending from a librarian 30 ft. away.

[mklhawley]

This is from Joe Chetcuti:


We know that the Indictment was declared a True Bill by the Grand Jury on Nov 19th.


We know that two Old Bailey Court dates were set up for Tumblety that pertained to this Indictment. (Nov 20th and Dec 10th.)


Thanks to David, we now know that on Dec 27th, a Certificate of Indictment was issued.


The Certificate confirmed that as of Monday Nov 19th, Tumblety "stands indicted" for gross indecency and indecent assault.


These following two sentences were also written in the Certificate:

"To which Indictment the said Francis Tumblety hath not appeared or pleaded. And that afterwards to wit at a like session held on the 10th of December in the same year certain recognizances...were forfeited..."


It is important that we get those last two sentences interpreted correctly. It sounds to me like the Certificate of Indictment was informing us that Tumblety did not make an appearance for his court date (a date which we know to have been Nov 20th) and then afterwards, this meaning after Tumblety's Nov 20th no-show, a Dec 10th session was held. The ultimate result of the brief Dec 10th session was a forfeiture of bail.


Once again, the Certificate of Indictment first established that Tumblety did not appear for his court date. Then the Certificate informed us that afterwards, meaning at a later date, a Dec 10th session was convened.

I'm not here to debate the point, and I welcome others to provide any additional interpretations of those two sentences.