Tumblety in Holloway

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • John G
    replied
    Originally posted by Jonathan H View Post
    The ‘Olean Democrat’ (New York) August 8th 1889

    ‘... I had barely secured a seat in the bridge car when a peculiar looking man entered. He was over six feet in height, his face was square and red, and his gigantic, wiry, black mustache [sic] was of such huge proportions and singular cut that it would have attracted attention anywhere. It attracted my attention at any rate and as its owner sat down beside me I immediately decided in my mind that

    HE WAS DR. TUMBLETY,

    the alleged Whitechapel murderer. I had seen several pictures of that notorious gentleman which were published in “The Herald” about the time he fled from London, and the man sitting beside me closely resembled them ... I asked him his name. “Dr. Francis Tumblety, you may have heard it before,” was the quiet reply. I replied somewhat significantly that I had. He said he had been greatly wronged by the press, and gave me a pamphlet containing his picture and a number of notices of a book he had just published. We parted at the Brooklyn end of the bridge. Shortly thereafter, the last Whitechapel murder occurred in London, and as Tumblety was without doubt in Brooklyn at the time, he is evidently unjustly suspected of being “Jack the Ripper”.’

    Could "last Whitechapel murder" be a reference to Alice McKenzie?

    Leave a comment:


  • Jonathan H
    replied
    The ‘Olean Democrat’ (New York) August 8th 1889

    ‘... I had barely secured a seat in the bridge car when a peculiar looking man entered. He was over six feet in height, his face was square and red, and his gigantic, wiry, black mustache [sic] was of such huge proportions and singular cut that it would have attracted attention anywhere. It attracted my attention at any rate and as its owner sat down beside me I immediately decided in my mind that

    HE WAS DR. TUMBLETY,

    the alleged Whitechapel murderer. I had seen several pictures of that notorious gentleman which were published in “The Herald” about the time he fled from London, and the man sitting beside me closely resembled them ... I asked him his name. “Dr. Francis Tumblety, you may have heard it before,” was the quiet reply. I replied somewhat significantly that I had. He said he had been greatly wronged by the press, and gave me a pamphlet containing his picture and a number of notices of a book he had just published. We parted at the Brooklyn end of the bridge. Shortly thereafter, the last Whitechapel murder occurred in London, and as Tumblety was without doubt in Brooklyn at the time, he is evidently unjustly suspected of being “Jack the Ripper”.’

    Leave a comment:


  • mklhawley
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
    Hi John
    It doesn't detract from the fact that Wilde was suitable case for bail and was not granted bail.The magistrate clearly exercised his discretionary powers !

    Perhaps we can now put this issue to bed now. But I suspect that we will see all manner of excuses and explanations from those who will still not accept the reality that in the balance of probability Tumblety was not bailed until after committal despite this case proving that point.
    Oh yes, and Chief Inspector Littlechild was involved with the Oscar Wilde case, albeit on the other side. Wasn't he the one who said Tumblety was 'amongst the suspects'? He was! He, of all people, would have known the comparisons.

    Sorry Trevor.

    Mike

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    For those who are waiting eagerly for our legal eagle to pull a rabbit out of the hat this makes good reading in the interim time



    reading deeper into this it would appear that there may have been concerns raised with the court that he was considered a flight risk and likely to abscond to France.

    It should also be noted that he was never granted bail even after committal !

    I am away now until tomorrow, so I will catch up when I return

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by John G View Post
    Presumably the police would also know if he was in prison on the 9th November. But wasn't he charged on suspicion of being responsible for the Whitechapel murders on the 12th November? Were these charges added to the indictment at the committal hearing on the 16th?
    John
    he was never charged in connection with the murders and nothin officila to show he was ever arrested for those

    Leave a comment:


  • John G
    replied
    Originally posted by GUT View Post
    But I suspect FT would have known, and what % of newspapers are readily available to search, or indeed have been searched.
    Presumably the police would also know if he was in prison on the 9th November. But wasn't he charged on suspicion of being responsible for the Whitechapel murders on the 12th November? Were these charges added to the indictment at the committal hearing on the 16th?

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
    I'm at work and can't post now but, to try and prevent a discussion on a false basis continuing throughout the entire day, I just want to say that I can answer this Oscar Wilde point in full and will do so when I am home later this evening. In the meantime I suggest the debate is held in abeyance and the thread goes back to the topic of Holloway prison.
    There is no false basis unless you create one !

    Leave a comment:


  • David Orsam
    replied
    I'm at work and can't post now but, to try and prevent a discussion on a false basis continuing throughout the entire day, I just want to say that I can answer this Oscar Wilde point in full and will do so when I am home later this evening. In the meantime I suggest the debate is held in abeyance and the thread goes back to the topic of Holloway prison.

    Leave a comment:


  • GUT
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
    Read the post, did I specify you in that post?
    Well since you quoted me yes you did.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by GUT View Post
    I never ask you any such thing and your post has naught to do with my post that you quoted, so not sure what your point is.
    Read the post, did I specify you in that post?

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by GUT View Post
    And I though this thread was on what prison he was in, I am so stupid.
    It is, and I was waiting for the other thread to be re opened and was going to post it then but Mike Hawleys post opened the door of opportunity.

    Leave a comment:


  • GUT
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
    Do you accept that the case of Wilde is a mirror image of Tumbletys case in every way. I was asked to provide evidence to show that at least one person charged in similar circumstances was refused bail on their first court appearence. That I have done. so whose turn is it to squirm.The worm has turned.
    I never ask you any such thing and your post has naught to do with my post that you quoted, so not sure what your point is.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by GUT View Post
    But I suspect FT would have known, and what % of newspapers are readily available to search, or indeed have been searched.
    Do you accept that the case of Wilde is a mirror image of Tumbletys case in every way. I was asked to provide evidence to show that at least one person charged in similar circumstances was refused bail on their first court appearence. That I have done. so whose turn is it to squirm.The worm has turned.

    Leave a comment:


  • GUT
    replied
    And I though this thread was on what prison he was in, I am so stupid.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by PaulB View Post
    I think it may be dangerous to make compare Wilde and Tumblety, But someone better informed about Wilde than I am could probably confirm that.
    Why, they are identical in almost every way, but hey when I posted that did I expect that it would be readily accepted? No, of course not, after all this is casebook and many that sit here holding court find it hard to accept that Saturday follows Friday

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X