Tumblety in Holloway

[Chris]

The facts are there though and don't go away because of how we 'feel'. Feelings, while important to humanity have no place in the providence of the evidentiary. Meaning these forums and their intent. One either derives that type of Knowledge or not. David has provided examples of how that is done. The onus is on the critics to provide the same level of analysis... Or not, as it seems.

Unfortunately, this whole question has got so bound up with personalities and egos that people won't try to examine the facts objectively. For many people, winning the argument by any means necessary is the only concern.

[Amanda]

Well done David,

Your research is impeccable. Hoping that you put it to good use in an article for 'Ripperologist' or is there an impending book?

Amanda

[Batman]

Hi David,

Funny you should mention that.

I was about to post a polite acceptance of your findings, but due to your final arrogant post-too-far I have decided not to bother.

Regards,

Simon

The facts are there though and don't go away because of how we 'feel'. Feelings, while important to humanity have no place in the providence of the evidentiary. Meaning these forums and their intent. One either derives that type of Knowledge or not. David has provided examples of how that is done. The onus is on the critics to provide the same level of analysis... Or not, as it seems.

Unless of course a judge somehow through his own discretion decides to go for feelings over evidence. ...

[David Orsam]

Hi Simon,

And, indeed, there is now no need for you to post acceptance of my findings because they are undeniable.

Best regards,

David

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

Funny you should mention that.

I was about to post a polite acceptance of your findings, but due to your final arrogant post-too-far I have decided not to bother.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

I am happy to accept apologies from anyone who doubted me that Tumblety was sent to Holloway on both 7 November and 14 November.

[David Orsam]

Regarding the closure of Newgate to remand and committal prisoners, this first became public knowledge in September 1881 with a report in the Times of 19 September 1888, based on a City Press story, that the Commissioners of Prisons had decided not to retain of Newgate and that it only remained with the Home Secretary to endorse their decision.

The following letter from the Home Office to the Common Sergeant dated 3 January 1882 was then reproduced in the Times of 6 January 1882:

My dear sir – I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 2d inst., which I have shown to Sir William Harcourt.

In reply, Sir William desires me to say that there appears to be a great deal of misapprehension abroad with regard to the real intentions of the Government as to the future use of Newgate Prison.

These intentions are simply that henceforth this prison shall only be made use of during the sessions of the Central Criminal Court, and not for the detention of prisoners in the intervals. In future, therefore, all prisoners for trial at the Central Criminal Court will be committed to Clerkenwell, from whence they will be removed to Newgate Prison, there to be detained until they are disposed of.

I am to add that there is no intention of pulling down or of altering the prison buildings.

I remain, my dear Sir, yours very faithfully,

R. Sidney Mitford

Subsequently, the below correspondence can be found in CRIM 8/13 between James Grisham, the Clerk of the Mansion House Police Court, to Edward James Read, and the Clerk of the Sessions House at the Old Bailey:

From Grisham to Read dated 18 January 1882:

Dear Sir,

I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 16th inst which I have laid before the Lord Mayor who has given instructions for carrying out your wishes.

With respect to the closing of Newgate would you kindly inform me whether in Bail Recognizances the Sessions should be described as “General Session of Oyer and Terminer and Gaol Delivery of Newgate” as heretofore and whether the accused is to “surrender himself into the custody of the Keeper of the Common Gaol there” or to the Keeper of Her Majesty’s Prison at Clerkenwell, or otherwise.

I am,

Dear sir,

Yours faithfully,

James Grisham

Reply from Read to Grisham dated 21 January 1882

Dear Sir,

The Sessions should be described as the General Sessions of Oyer and Terminer and Gaol Delivery of Newgate and other lawfully constituted Prison or Prisons or some such words. I think it would be quite unnecessary to quote the operative words of the New Commissioners which evidently contemplated the possibility of some other Gaol being hereafter prescribed instead of H.M. Prison Clerkenwell. I send for your guidance a copy of the operative part of the Commission.

Clearly the accused must be required to “surrender himself into the custody of the Keeper of Her Majesty’s Prison at Clerkenwell” because it is in that capacity he will be required to receive prisoners for trial.

I am,

Dear sir,

Yours faithfully,

Edward James Read


I could post a lot more material but I think that is quite enough.

[David Orsam]

The above explains why the Central Court Calendar for November 1888 (and for the previous two years) is signed off by the Governor of Holloway Prison. Below is the final page of the Calendar for the 19 November 1888 Session at which Tumblety was supposed to surrender himself.

[David Orsam]

My own key document is a Home Office memorandum, in HO 45/960/A49189, dealing with the problems of identifying prisoners for the purposes of including their past convictions in the Court Calendar, which I reproduce below. The memorandum is date stamped 6 August 1888 and includes the sentence that:

"Certain warders attend twice weekly at Holloway Prison, where all remand prisoners are detained."

It could not be clearer. And it corroborates the information in the Morning Post. So the information in a book found on the internet that Holloway did not become a remand prison until 1891 is wrong.

[David Orsam]

Until now, everyone seems to have assumed that Tumblety ended up in Newgate prison. Despite me posting in another thread that it was in fact Holloway, this was challenged and, regrettably, misinformation was posted on the board which has not been corrected. I hadn't posted my own evidence because it meant having to search through thousands of documents in multiple folders, which I didn't immediately have time to do, but I have now carried this exercise. And, ironically, having done so, a quick newspaper search last night turned up probably the best evidence of all.

From the Morning Post of 30 April 1886:

"On and after to-day all prisoners on remand and for trial within the Metropolitan police district, are to be committed to Holloway Prison, in consequence of the closure of Clerkenwell Prison."