Tumblety in Holloway

[Trevor Marriott]

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?

[GUT]

Read the post, did I specify you in that post?

Well since you quoted me yes you did.

[David Orsam]

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.

[Trevor Marriott]

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 !

[John G]

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?

[Trevor Marriott]

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

[Trevor Marriott]

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

http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/9353472

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

[mklhawley]

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

[Jonathan H]

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”.’

[John G]

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?

[Jonathan H]

That's right, Alice McKenzie.

I was backing up PaulB's astute point that the Annie Farmer alleged assault also was treated as an alibi for Tumblety.

Had he been in custody for Kelly we would have seen the same claim, but we do not.

[PaulB]

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

Well, you know, ready acceptance would be a very bad thing. We should always test the evidence, even when it looks solid, so I think the people who question what's said are wise to do so. They probably do know that Saturday follows Friday. It's the one's who just accept anything who probably can't.

[John G]

In respect of the Oscar Wilde trial, it may be worth noting that a reason for denying bail at the earlier remand hearings could be that it hadn't been decided at that stage whether he should be brought up on charges of sodomy, which was a felony, or acts of gross indecency, a misdemeanour: he had been arrested on both charges.

In fact, even after the committal hearing the Chief Magistrate, Sir John Bridge, still refused to grant bail, even though by that stage it was decided to proceed with the lesser charge so he was technically obliged to do so. His reasoning was because of the "extreme gravity of the case." See: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...bridge&f=false

Of course, this could have a bearing on Tumblety's case if he was also initially arrested for sodomy (felony) as well as gross indecency (misdemeanour), with it only being decided to proceed with the lesser charge at the committal stage.

[mklhawley]

That's right John, and we know when Tracy Greaves, the World's London chief correspondent sent the story-breaking article connecting 'Kumblety' with the Whitechapel murders on Nov 17, he stated they re-arrested him with the law passed after the Babylon exposures, indecent assault and gross indecency.

Mike

[John G]

That's right John, and we know when Tracy Greaves, the World's London chief correspondent sent the story-breaking article connecting 'Kumblety' with the Whitechapel murders on Nov 17, he stated they re-arrested him with the law passed after the Babylon exposures, indecent assault and gross indecency.

Mike

Hello Mike,

Thanks for the reply. Am I right in thinking that Littlechild stipulated that Tumblety had been arrested for "unnatural offences"? If so, this appears to be a blanket term which would have included sodomy, a felony. That, of course, raises the possibility that Tumblety could have been denied bail at the remand hearing- because of the possibility of proceeding with felony charges, coupled with the flight risk- but granted bail at committal, when it was decided to proceed with the lesser charge of gross indecency (a misdemeanour). In fact, this would make sense as sodomy was much more difficult to prove, which is why that charge was dropped in the case of Oscar Wilde.