December 2008 Tumbelty Discussion

[How Brown]

Please join in here, those of you who are interested in Dr. T. and those who just have some questions...

Let me ease into the following this way...so bear with me, as you know how long winded I am.

Where I work, there is a practice utilized by supervisors ( such as myself and those above me in the Office) where an employee's infractions are noted on a sheet...with time and date and specific infraction.

If a "valuable" employee has notched a few infractions ( eating near a production line...smoking inside the building...or other non-confrontational infractions), at the time that individual requests an increase in his or her pay, the list is whipped out to either use for or against the individual.

If the individual is expendable ( poor work habits,etc), because of the legal issues that exist which are on an employee's side, this list is crucial in order to prove that the individual ( who also must sign the sheet acknowledging that he or she is cognizant of their infraction) wasn't simply jettisoned into the street, for no reason,allowing the individual to get unemployment checks from the State despite being a pisspoor worker.

Now....I said that to say this...

When we look at the list of homosexual acts committed by Tumbelty which are as follows:

July 27,1888-Albert Fisher
August 31st-Arthur Brice
October 14- James Crowley
November 2nd-John Doughty

....I have a problem with this whole infraction "sheet".

How could the authorities press charges against Tumbelty for homosexual acts dating back exactly 14 weeks prior to November 2nd?

Is it possible that I missed something in my studies in that perhaps the ostentatious Tumbelty was being searched for back in July,after the Fisher affair? Searched for in London...when had he been caught then, he would have faced a possible jail sentence then...right after July 27th.

If I haven't missed anything....then it appears that the only evidence used against Tumbelty was hearsay...and unprovable in court. The time between Nov. 2nd and this July act with Fisher is once more 3 and 1/2 months between events.

It makes just as much sense...to me...for Tumbelty to have left London after the first affair...than it does after the fourth.

I have this sneaking suspicion that something is rotten with the concept we have about Tumbelty appearing before court with 4 tailor made affairs on his "sheet" to sentence him with. To me, it looks almost as if the authorities KNEW about the three priors,because I cannot understand how the authorities rounded up the other three men/boys in time for the Tumbelty appearance after the November 2nd incident.

Anyone?

[How Brown]

Does it seem to anyone here that its possible the police were stockpiling the number of offenses here against Tumbelty?

[John Savage]

Hi Howard,

It could be that John Doughty came to the police attention on or after November 2nd. and that under interrogation he "fingered" the others in the hope of getting a lighter sentence?

Rgds
John

[Joe Chetcuti]

There was only one indictment against Tumblety for these indecent assaults. The violations were not prosecuted separately. The four "victims" may have been given an option by the police:

"Either join together in helping us convict Tumblety or we will throw the book at each of you for your participation in these crimes."

[How Brown]

Joe:

So, according to your statement previously, since there was only one indictment ( which I was aware of,but thanks for clarifying )....and in line with what Professor Savage stated....then Doughty comes to their attention on the 2nd of December or is caught with Tumbelty on that date. By the 7th,all the other fegelahs have been rounded up to also press charges against Tumbelty. It must have been some serious sodomizin'....all this effort for a few consensual incidents of male bonding.

Wouldn't the one count of indecent assault have been enough..the one against Doughty? Why do the authorities go all the way back to the "assault" against Fisher in July ? It must have been a remarkable assault for the 'victim" to have remembered the exact date of this offense. How can they accept the charges against Tumbelty ,which by now had virtually passed into the vapors of history ( 14 weeks from the first to the last ), unless the authorities knew of these incidents...but couldn't find him? With what tangible evidence can they pursue a case against Tumbelty,other than hearsay, in the first three incidents? I find all this disconcerting and perhaps I am being less than clear on this issue.

This is why I feel that the police did know of Tumbelty's movements in London since July...for Fenian purposes alone...and by the last incident...which I believe ( without proof,to be sure ) he was caught en flagrante with this latter boytoy,Doughty. They had the opportunity to put Tumbelty in jail based on him being caught with his proverbial pants down....and with their "sheet" of (theoretical) stockpiled prior offenses which the authorities knew about,but counterproductive to pursue at the time they actually occurred since the authorities still wanted Tumbelty out and about to locate his Fenian friends...they were satisfied in December to put Tumbelty away since the well had run dry for further Fenian connections.

Try and remember what you did 14 weeks ago,John and Joe, on a specific date...the charges against Tumbelty contra Fisher specified an exact date. No "on or around", but a specific date.

Back to you gents...and please counter what I am positing here....

[Big Jon]

Perhaps the guy kept a very good diary, and had an entry for "Dinner with Dr T" and that led to hanky panky or something.

14 weeks ago today I spent the day packing a suitcase to go to London on the weekend for a Scout leaders meeting, and in the evening I went to an area Scout leaders meeting. So it is possible to know exactly what you were doing on a specific date months later.

[Joe Chetcuti]

Hello Howard,

Your remark about how the police "did know of Tumblety's movements in London since July" is in accord with the Littlechild Letter:

"(Tumblety was) a frequent visitor to London and on these occasions constantly brought under the notice of police, there being a large dossier concerning him at Scotland Yard."

As for the four guys who were named on the indictment, my guess would be that they were all young. I have in my notes that Brice was in his late teens in 1888. I don't know the ages of the other three, but I wouldn't be surprised if they were all youthful blokes. Maybe in their 20's.

Tumblety often associated himself with grown-up boys in these lewd affairs. One of the reasons I think Tumblety would choose a youngster was because if it ever came down to a one-on-one trial between the two, a jury would more likely believe the words of a wealthy, well-dressed older man rather than believe the words of some youngster. Tumblety could also afford the best attorneys. In a one-on-one situation, the prosecutors would have a tough time convicting Tumblety.

But storing up the accounts of four different guys and bringing them all together at once against Tumblety in a court of law, well that's a different scenario. The chances of a conviction against Tumblety would increase.

So Howard, when you say "Wouldn't one count of indecent assault have been enough...?" My thoughts are that it might not have been enough. And the prosecutors may have been thinking along these same lines.

[How Brown]

Thanks for helping out here guys...

Bignanamous Rex:

I have a near photographic memory for stuff like "what did I do three weeks ago" and stuff like that. Its when I put files in the wrong places on my computers that I get perplexed and start throwing stuff out of windows. I understand that someone could be hip to their previous movements & machinations...and considering the nature of an incident, its probably easier. Its significance augments mnomenical recall.

Yet,most cannot reach back into the gray matter and remember incidents...such as sodomizing another rank and file guy when said sodomizer apparently did this sort of thing on a regular basis...its not like some anniversarial event for one of Tumbelty's boytoys since its not that special.


Joltin Joe:

Before we get rolling, let me say at the outset that I am NOT trying to diminish Tumbelty's candidacy as the Ripper by hammerin' away at this aspect. This is something completely different.

Lets review your generous comments for a moment:

1. "Your remark about how the police "did know of Tumblety's movements in London since July" is in accord with the Littlechild Letter.."

Correct,sir...and THIS is precisely why I am groping here for a rationalization as to what I see as a case of the police virtually allowing him to continue buggerin'....when they KNEW where he was and what he was doing 14 weeks ( + or - a week or so) before the fourth infraction on his "sheet".

If,as you said and as the internal content of the L.L. which as we both know, stated..."constantly brought under the notice of police..." then to me...it appears that its quite likely that the Special Irish Branch didn't just coincidentally decide after the fourth infraction to nail his ostentatious butt with the Doughty offense, but that they had exhausted every avenue in tracing Fenian activity via Tumbelty and decided at that point in time...which is obviously close to the Kelly murder...to clamp down on him then.
*************************************

2. As for the four guys who were named on the indictment, my guess would be that they were all young. I have in my notes that Brice was still a teenager in 1888. I don't know the ages of the other three, but I wouldn't be surprised if they were all youthful blokes. Maybe in their 20's

I would wager, Joe, that their chronological age belied the fact that these four young men were probably pretty well versed and oiled ( pardon the pun) in the ways of procuring "Sugar Daddys" like Tumbelty. I would even go so far as positing that its likely that one of them willingly "chicken hawked" themselves, much akin as to the way young homos pander themselves today on street corners ( Kensington,in Philadelphia,is notorious for this sort of stuff). I don't think that its etched in stone that Tumbelty seduced any one of them,nor do I think its a "given' that he made the first move,period,in ANY case. I think the police would have turned a blind eye had one of the punks made the first move,since that was not what they were interested in Tumbelty for in the first place...this homosexual behavior. Busting Tumbelty before exhausting the potential links he had to Fenians would be like killing the Golden Goose.
************************************

3. Tumblety often associated himself with grown-up boys in these lewd affairs. One of the reasons I think Tumblety would choose a youngster was because if it ever came down to a one-on-one trial between the two, a jury would more likely believe the words of a wealthy, well-dressed older man rather than believe the words of some punk from the slums. Tumblety could also afford the best attorneys. In a one-on-one situation, the prosecutors would have a tough time convicting Tumblety.

This may be true,Joe...but Hall Caine was seduced by him and he wasn't a teenybopper as we both know. I think that as in the case of heterosexual creeps who solicit female prostitutes excluding the available and only ones at 2 A.M. on a back alley...that the rule, younger the better or less "used" applies...,but not for legalese issues...to be honest. But either way,yes...he did seem to like 'em before they got ripe.
**************************************

4.But storing up the accounts of four different guys and bringing them all together at once against Tumblety in a court of law, well that's a different scenario. The chances of a conviction against Tumblety would increase.

True...and yet this means that the 3 other offended parties...if they were really offended or felt violated...which is impossible to prove...just sat around while the police made the decision to make their "case" after the fourth incident...14 weeks after Tumbelty's butthunting began....if it DID only begin 14 weeks before and if the hunt only included 4 young men. Maybe there were even more.


So Howard, when you say "Wouldn't one count of indecent assault have been enough...the one against Doughty?" My thoughts are that it might not have been enough. The prosecutors may have been thinking along these same lines.

We have to ask ourselves Joe...if all of this collating of individuals violated by Tumbelty ever occurred or occurred in the way we assume it did. If the prosecutors waited...as is inferred time and time again...then aren't they or wouldn't they be guilty of aiding and abetting Tumbelty by not going after him on the Fisher affair? If the Fisher affair was as it is inferred...a case of an older man violating some Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farms...then to me, it would be a slam dunk that he would be convicted.

That they waited infers to me that these "violations" were merely consensual liasons...but obviously violations of British law....and furthermore,since Tumbelty's days as a potential Golden Goose for possible U.K. Fenian links were done, the authorities decided, 'enough is enough".


Back to you,Joe and Jon...and anyone else who would care to please join the discussion.

Again,please go for the jugular where you see me in error. I am of the opinion at this point in time that Tumbelty was being "sheeted" or having his legal infractions ( homosexual behavior) noted after each event...to use against him should he prove a fruitless fruit in regard to links to U.K. Fenians.

[John Savage]

Hi Howard,

First of all may I clarify that there is a difference between gross indecency and sodomy [or buggery if you prefer]. Sodomy had been illegal for centuries and at one time even carried the death penalty, although by 1888 I think the maximuim sentence was about 10 years. Gross indecency came about with the introduction of section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885, the term refers to lesser sex acts such as mutual masturbation and fellatio; and the maximum sentence was 2 years.

As to the age of the men in question, Chris Scott did some research a few years ago and found several likely names in the census that may indicate that these young men were indeed in their twenties.

The only record we have of these offences are a entries in a record book which tells us that Tumblety appeared before Mr. Hanney who was the magistrate at Marlborough Street Police Court. It is a pity that we have no other records as I think the full details of this case would add enormously to our knowledge of Tumblety. However I beleive that I am correct in saying that he would have been taken the Police Court closest to were he was arrested.

Marlborough Street is located in the west end of London, off Regent Street and about 200 yards from Oxford Circus. I recall reading somewhere that when in London Tumblety stayed at the Langham Hotel, which was a very new and high class establishment at the time, it was situated in Regent Street a few hundred yards north of Oxford Circus. So it could well be that this was the area in which Tumblety was arrested.

The dates given for the offences are a riddle, and will probably remain so unless and until new eveidence comes to light; but as Scotland Yard seem to have kept a large file on our man it might be reasonable to suppose that this was connected to Fenian activity. Perhaps then, police kept watch on him and noted discreet meetings with these young men and obtained details of their identity in order to check if they had Fenian links. Then one day they arrest Doughty and suddenly find out that Irish politics was the last thing they discussed!

Rgds
John

[How Brown]

Perhaps then, police kept watch on him and noted discreet meetings with these young men and obtained details of their identity in order to check if they had Fenian links. Then one day they arrest Doughty and suddenly find out that Irish politics was the last thing they discussed!

Good points,Professor...

Do you see what I am driving at here,John ? That this list of names seems to have been stockpiled? If the gross indecency charges could have given Tumbelty two years in the slammer, thats 2 years to a 55 year old man.

More later...

[Joe Chetcuti]

Howard, in regards to your Number 1 point, yes the police probably knew that Tumblety was playing his games in London with young men from July though Oct 1888. But did the police purposely allow Tumblety to do this, as you surmise? Was that the reason why they did not arrest the 'doctor' in August, Sept, or Oct? It was because the cops were allowing him to satisfy his vice? I'm more inclined to think that they didn't prosecute him during those months because they knew that the material they accumulated from the Fisher, Brice, and Crowley cases was not strong enough to win a conviction. But there may have been something about the Nov 2nd Doughty incident that energized the prosecutors. Hard evidence may have been preserved, a key witness obtained, etc. It could have been a number of things. And when adding the Doughty material to the previous three incidents, then maybe the "sheet" finally became strong enough to cause an arrest warrant to be issued. Of course this is a tough matter to draw any conclusions on because we know very little about the details of these violations.

But I'm not ready to pursue a path that suggests "Tumblety was not prosecuted during July-Oct 1888, so that equates to the police giving the 'doctor' the green light to go ahead and violate more young men."


As for your Number 2 point in regards to the four London men mentioned in the indictment, right now there isn't any information about them that can allow us to determine how street-wise they were in 1888. But I should say that Tumblety did have a history of recruiting young men who were gullible. There were guys whom the 'doctor' sexually took advantage of. 18 year old Henry Carr and the young son of Mrs. Lyons are examples of this. Those two didn't know what they were in for with Tumblety until it was too late.

By his suavity, (Tumblety) was successful beyond comprehension in enlisting and securing the attendance, at certain hours of the day and evening, of good-looking young men and boys, greenhorns, to "walk into my parlor." - San Francisco Chronicle Nov 20, 1888.

If I had to guess, I'd say Tumblety was out hunting for young men on those four occasions in 1888 London. I doubt that he was taking an innocent stroll when he encountered each of these four blokes.


As for your Number 3 point, Caine was only 21 years old in 1875 when he was being manipulated by Tumblety. But to his credit, Caine was smart enough to get out of that affair.


In regards to point Number 4, I do not think the police decided to begin "to make their case against Tumblety" after the Doughty incident. Instead I think they combined the Nov 2nd information with the data they stored from the previous three cases, and after doing so they felt that they finally had enough material to try for a conviction.

Your Number 1, 2, and 4 points all ended with an obvious Fenian theme. So you're in a good old Irish mood today, eh Howard? Well, I've got an Irish assignment for you. Maybe Bulldog Howard can sniff through the shamrocks and get us some answers. I'll present it next week on another thread.

[How Brown]

Thanks Joltin':kiss:

Now that I see Roger is around...perhaps R.J. would like to offer his views here..

.....and that includes anyone else.

Thanks.