Bail Scenarios [Archive] - JTRForums.com - THE place to be for All Things Ripper

How Brown

05-08-2009, 06:01 AM

Another one I will have to work on this evening.

We have 3 scenarios regarding Tumbelty & the two men who bailed him out...three that are probably the most likely of all possible situations....in fact,if you can find one likely or as likely or likely at all...please add it on to the thread.

1. That Tumbelty had the money to bail himself out...needed to have someone post his bail and that these two knew him and they did just that for him.
2. That Tumbelty had the money to bail himself out....needed to have someone post his bail and despite the fact that these two men did not know him, they did just that for him anyway

3. That Tumbelty did not have the money, was lucky to find two men who knew or did not know him and who obviously had the 300 pound bail and they bailed him out.

More to come. Work calls.

Nemo

05-08-2009, 07:44 AM

All I would add is that £300 was a substantial amount of money

Tumblety's flight in the US and disappearance from his lodgings etc could be totally based on him dodging the repayment to the two men whom he is reported to have left in the lurch

I didn't know until recently that the bail money was posted from America

How then could the two men have recently met Tumblety?

Is it that they met him in London and had recently returned to the US?

Would they then appear on a passenger list somewhere?

Chris G.

05-08-2009, 09:41 AM

Another scenario is that the money was put up by a third party and given to these two men to be a "front" for the actual money man or organization. Yes the money could have been Tumblety's own. But it could also have come from some Tumblety acquaintance such as Hall Caine or from Irish nationalist contacts of the good doctor who might not want their name(s) known.

Chris

Simon Wood

05-08-2009, 12:20 PM

Hi All,

Let's throw one of John Lennon's Spaniards in the Works.

Daily Inter Ocean, 20th November 1888—

4995

What price Tumblety's 7th November arrest?

Regards,

Simon

Nemo

05-08-2009, 12:39 PM

If the purpose of the Modern Babylon charges was to hold him, why was it a misdemeanour upon which he was immediately bailed?

You can be remanded for various reasons. One would be that you are likely to flee

I think if the police thought he was the Ripper, but had no evidence for it, then came up with the Modern Babylon charges, they would have remanded him in custody for those charges

Alternatively, I suppose they could have released him and put him under intense surveillance hoping that he would incriminate himself in some way. I can see the detectives being "embarrassed" under these circumstances after his escape

Simon Wood

05-08-2009, 01:04 PM

Hi Nemo,

Good points.

With respect, I think a fundamental question must be: with such a supposedly high-profile suspect, and with the enormous international resources at its disposal, why would the Metropolitan Police have been so derelict in its duty by not monitoring Tumblety's movements and placed itself in the position of being duped/looking stupid/being embarrassed?

Regards,

Simon

Nemo

05-08-2009, 01:11 PM

Thanks Simon

I can think of a scenario - where Tumblety was not arrested as a Ripper suspect, he was bailed for sexual misdemeanours and fled

No real embarrassment to anyone (except Tumblety who encouraged the "Ripper suspect" stories)

He may have been looked at as a "person of interest" briefly but exonerated quickly

Didn't Byrne plainly state that Tumblety was in no way a suspect for the Whitechapel murders?

In which case the Ripper suspicion emanated from the US press/Tumblety - the British may have been ridiculed by the US press, but they were happy to think the Americans were deluded in their conclusions

A.P. Wolf

05-08-2009, 01:11 PM

Simon.
may the force be with you.
I mean Debs of course.
Enjoy!

Simon Wood

05-08-2009, 01:13 PM

Thanks AP,

I feel like a kid in a candy store.

Regards,

Simon

Simon Wood

05-08-2009, 01:20 PM

Hi Nemo,

I fundamentally agree with you. No problems there.

But ain't it interesting that no American newspaper sought official confirmation from Scotland Yard that Dr T had been picked up on suspicion of being JtR?

Regards,

Simon

Nemo

05-08-2009, 01:27 PM

Would it be because the Modern Babylon charges were deemed to be "trumped up" charges? No answer could then be expected from the police by the reporters

Approaching the police would have not got truthful replies if that were the case

Even if they were not deemed false or exaggerated charges (by the US press) the statement had already been made that there was no evidence for Tumblety as a Ripper suspect so he was charged with the sexual offences

Scotland Yard would only be able to confirm that he had been charged with sexual offences and fled bail

I don't think they would have confirmed any of their suspicions that he was the Ripper (if indeed such suspicions existed)

Simon Wood

05-08-2009, 01:55 PM

Hi Nemo,

The actuality of a Court Calendar listing Tumblety's offences against four men between July and November 1888 suggests to me that these charges were not "trumped up". If they were trumped up, then we are dealing with a conspiracy even more deep-rooted than I believe it to have been.

To answer your other points—

An 1888 reporter would have been hard-pressed to get a truthful comment from the cops. Make no mistake, the police blatantly lied to the press throughout the Whitechapel Murders.

As early as 10th September 1888 The Star reported—

"They [the police] treat the reporters of the newspapers, who are simply news-gatherers for the great mass of the people, with a snobbery that would be beneath contempt were it not senseless to an almost criminal degree. On Saturday they shut the reporters out of the mortuary; they shut them out of the house where the murder was done; the constable at the mortuary door lied to them; some of the inspectors at the offices seemed to wilfully mislead them; they denied information which would have done no harm to make public, and the withholding of which only tended to increase the public uneasiness over the affair."

The cops were complicit in whatever was going on during the Autumn of Terror.

Regards,

Simon

Nemo

05-08-2009, 02:20 PM

Apologies Simon - I don't think I made myself clear there

I meant - if the US reporters had already heard the "story" that Tumblety was suspected of being the Ripper - but could only be held/charged for a sexual misdemeanour - then would they (the reporters) have expected a reply from the police that confirmed Tumblety's position as a Ripper suspect?

From your post I would say not

So did they bother to ask? Or if they did, did they get what they expected - no confirmation of his suspect status, just the info about the sexual charges

(I'm not sure that is clear either - lol)

Nemo

05-08-2009, 04:26 PM

Can I ask Simon, did not Tumblety flee before his court appearance?

He was bailed and immediately fled didn't he?

In this case, no warrant for his arrest would have been issued and nobody would be looking for him

Only after he failed to appear at court would he be looked for and an arrest warrant issued

Why then were detectives (supposedly) tailing him and waiting for him on the dock?

Have I got the dates mixed up or something?

Stan Russo

05-08-2009, 06:53 PM

Nemo,

There is no supposedly - the police, and by police I mean the Special Branch, were definitively trailing Tumblety after his release. They knew every step he made after his release and followed him to France and also to the US, where another group of detectives were waiting for him - not to arrest him, but to trail him.

It is obvious that the Special Branch was hoping Tumblety would lead them to something, but pro-Tumblety researchers do not agree with this because it sheds light on the fact that Tumblety could not have committed the murders, but was still involved in some way.

Nemo

05-08-2009, 07:12 PM

Have you seen those films where FBI have a stake out on a suspect, then the police arrive and mess up the whole operation?

I wonder if something like that occurred

Special Branch watch Tumblety constantly in relation to Fenian activities - information about him is passed in some way to the police investigating the WM (American doctor) - the police promptly arrest him and have to let him go - Tumblety flees - Special Branch try to gloss over the error and try to continue in their surveillance - Tumblety is now aware of being followed/investigated and disappears...

Special Branch would have been a bit miffed about the arrest of Tumblety in this scenario - especially if they were onto something regarding Fenian activities

How Brown

05-08-2009, 07:32 PM

Stan:

Thanks for chipping in here.

One minor addition to the phrase you brought up.... " Special Branch".

Its Special Irish Branch...so that there is no confusion what they were all about.

Let me try to explain or express this without my usual longwindedness:

1. If Tumbelty knew these two men...and they knew enough of him to know he was 57 years old with a track record of hitting the tiles the minute trouble came his way...they would know they were risking their money ( if Tumblety had no money ) since the charges that were piled on to Tumblety would mean a few years in prison for an old man and there was no way that Tumblety even considered the possibility of going to jail,in my view.... The chances of him taking a powder are increased greatly since his age and the number of charges against him make the possibility of him fleeing a very likely possibility....and only two fools who knew him that well enough to front the bail money ( assuming he had none or had exchanged collateral with them prior to the bail payment ) would be likely to pay that amount of cash....for a guy who was undoubtedly not going to beat that rap at the age of 57.

2. If Tumblety didn't know them...and was benefitted by someone else using these two front men to pay the bail, the benefactor would still have to assume that Tumblety would flee, with or without collateral being exchanged in advance due to the same conditions that existed ( his age and the number of charges) with one possible caveat....that being that the mystery benefactor wanted him to flee or at least anticipated his flight from justice.

3. If Tumblety knew these two men and had the money on his person and had to have them pay the bail according to British bail procedures...then the question arises.....why did he have to have two men pay the bail? Why two?

Simon Wood

05-08-2009, 07:41 PM

Hi Stan,

Can you substantiate Scotland Yard trailing Dt T to France and on to New York?

Regards,

Simon

How Brown

05-08-2009, 07:48 PM

Allow me to add my speculation that the entire affair of Tumbelty's arrest, beginning on November 7th, was orchestrated in order that he lead them to someone or some people. He at no time was expected to not flee.

The police,in my view,anticipated him fleeing...rather,knowing he would flee, not being able to last one week in hard labor...and by dredging up prior beefs ( such as the 68 day old gross indecency charge on a guy who probably didn't object to the act in the first place.) they made it happen.

If it had been a violent,unwanted act of homosexual behavior on August 31st, the victim would have complained then and the 68 day gap would have not transpired. The fact is, that despite having no proof at the ready, the chances are that the sexual liason between Tumblety and his young man was consensual...and known to S.I.B.

The men who Littlechild claimed had been watching him...those guys with the large dossiers on him at SY...could have pounced on him THEN....and not waited until 3 other incidents transpired...but they didn't and its probably because only by the time of the November 7th day arrest they, the police or Special Irish Branch, had all the ingredients necessary to assure and guarantee that Tumblety would flee in the face of having to serve time in a London jail. They knew he would flee and they made it happen by letting the charges pile up for a sentence which would guarantee Pimplemeister to flee.

Nemo

05-08-2009, 07:59 PM

If the Special Irish Branch/Scotland Yard/Police had such a large file on him and knew so much about him, they would have suspected that he would flee - how did he even get Bail?

..unless it suited someone's purpose for him to be on the street

I feel certain the men who posted bail must have had at least an inkling that the money would be forfeited - though Tumblety was an expert sweet-talker and could easily have persuaded them otherwise

I believe there was no report of the sexual charges in the US before the bail was posted

Perhaps the Ripper story was solely to gain the bail money from these men

In a communication from Tumblety there may have been the insinuation that he had been arrested for the Ripper crimes and his exoneration was imminent

I cannot really see him even admitting that he had been arrested on sexual charges or gaining the bond money from relative strangers if he did so

Nemo

05-08-2009, 08:03 PM

I could agree with the likelihood much of your post Howard

I'm sure they would have liked to see him leave Britain altogether to thwart any Fenian plot/fundraising he may have been involved in

How Brown

05-08-2009, 08:21 PM

Nemo:

Here's some thoughts on your previous post:

If the Special Irish Branch/Scotland Yard/Police had such a large file on him and knew so much about him, they would have suspected that he would flee - how did he even get Bail?

I'm not sure if bail could be denied according to British statutes or laws.
I would also consider that by allowing him bail,in the instance that they could have prevented it, that it would be specifically to see who bailed him out...and where he went when he bailed out...or contacted after he flew the coop.

.....unless it suited someone's purpose for him to be on the street

Precisely what it looks like to me,old man.

I feel certain the men who posted bail must have had at least an inkling that the money would be forfeited - though Tumblety was an expert sweet-talker and could easily have persuaded them otherwise

Could it also be likely that they would hope he would take a hike after posting bail ? Sweet talking people out of their money for pimple creams is one thing...but when it has to do with someone who is facing jail time and there is little to take out of this "give and take" situation for the guys doing the giving...they've got to be awfully dumb to not expect him taking a powder....unless it was expected...this whole affair,that is.

SirRobertAnderson

05-08-2009, 08:47 PM

Stan Russo

05-08-2009, 10:37 PM

Simon,

Do I have official documentation of an anti-terrorist organization's surveillance schedule?

No.

I just analyze the information at hand, such as the NY Inspectors waiting for Tumblety's ship to arrive from France, the information that Tumblety spent most of the entire voyage in his cabin, the fact that it is recorded that there was an English detective on board the ship and the basic fact that we know where he went after London and where he went after that, as recorded by Littlechild. If they were not following him, how do you explain all of the above?

It may be time for some to acknowledge that Special Branch files will more than likely never be seen and that does not mean the Special Branch never did anything during that time.

Simon Wood

05-09-2009, 01:42 PM

Hi Stan,

I've looked everywhere I can think of but cannot find the story of an English detective being on Tumblety's ship.

Can you help?

Many thanks.

Regards,

Simon

Stan Russo

05-09-2009, 07:15 PM

Simon,

That is put together from information, such as the fact that it is known Tumblety used the alias 'Frank Townsend' to buy his ticket and aboard the ship, as well as information that an English detective was in NY only a week after Tumblety evaded CI Thomas Byrnes' surveillance.

One could hypothesize that after Tumblety landed, an English detective was sent after him, but knowing all we know, it makes perfect sense that Tumblety was being followed by the Special Branch, specifically since we know all of his specific movements after his release.

Most of this information is taken from Evans' and Gainey's book, but a lot of the information comes from re-examining the basic facts we know.

You might want to ask why Tumblety's suspect status has basically stalled? I believe it is due to a failure to examine the case difeerently, so a rut has developed.

How Brown

05-09-2009, 07:21 PM

Dear Stosh:

There is a 4 day gap in the chain of events,which I know you know...

That being from the November 20th hearing to the actual jettisoning of the La Bretagne with Tumblety aboard it on the 24th.

Do we know whether another ship launched for New York from the continent which would give this English detective's appearance in New York a new spin ?

Stan Russo

05-09-2009, 09:29 PM

How,

could be but what purpose would it serve to follow Tumblety to France and then board a ship for NY four days earlier than him?

It seems the goal was to keep an eye on him for some reason. I did read that the Captain of the ship mentioned Tumblety staying in his cabin and that there was an English detective on board, but can't place the reference right now.

How Brown

05-09-2009, 09:39 PM

Stosh:

Please go back to post # 19 and give me your criticisms of the content.

Thanks.

Nemo:

Good ideas back on posts 14 & 16.

Gonna go think about them for a bit.

Stan Russo

05-10-2009, 09:55 PM

How,

I agree with your analysis and want to add that, in my opinion, you are on the right track toward understanding this suspect better than many who have studied him for more than a decade.

How Brown

05-11-2009, 05:39 AM

Thanks for the kudos Stan. I am trying my best to come up with as many objective scenarios as to why they didn't arrest him immediately after the first obscenity complaint. Likewise, my subjective comments on post 19 are my personal view at this time.

Nemo

05-11-2009, 06:18 AM

I can understand homosexual activity between consenting adults being classed as a misdemeanour and the culprit making bail

...but the charges imply homosexual rape with force of arms - on 4 occasions - surely that is quite a serious charge?

How Brown

05-11-2009, 06:23 AM

EXACTLY Nemo !...and one count alone in association with that "large dossier"at Scotland Yard per Littlechild...should have been enough cause to arrest the big fegelah on September 1st,1888,

Nemo

05-11-2009, 10:49 AM

Here's a bail situation regarding Fenians in Rochester...

http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac287/HowieNina/0009.jpg

Stan Russo

05-11-2009, 03:38 PM

So perhaps there is something more to it

How Brown

05-11-2009, 04:30 PM

Stan:

Thats what I think as well...that these assaults were either:

A. Trumped up as to their severity and above all consensual. Only after the police had enough on him to take him to Marlborough Station with a "can't lose" case did they whip out all four charges.

B. Serious, but since the victims and the perp were poofs, the cops let it slide until it got to a point where they had to swoop down on Tumblety.

How in the world could Tumblety get away with one or at most two assaults on females without the cops getting involved ? Because of the feeling towards homosexuals,perhaps it would take more than what Tumblety is alleged to have doled out to the boys in London....

...and furthermore, why aren't there any similar charges or claims against Tumblety here in the USA...especially when he was younger?

Joe Chetcuti

05-12-2009, 02:35 PM

Rochester Democrat and Republican
December 3, 1888

...(Tumblety) met the son of Mrs. Lyons while walking on the Battery. The lad had just come from college and was a fine-looking young man...(Mrs. Lyons' son) brought a suit against the doctor charging atrocious assault, and the evidence collected in this case was of the most disgusting sort.

(The southern shoreline of Manhattan was known as the Battery.)

In the Nov 20, 1888 Daily Inter Ocean, Billy Pinkerton spoke of how Tumblety was "indulging in certain vices" in Washington DC and Chicago during the 1860's. Pinkerton explained that a repeat of this type of lewd misbehavior occurred in England when a teenager told the police about what Tumblety was doing to him. The Dec 1, 1873 London Times identified the lad as an 18 year old named Henry Carr. Tumblety had lured the kid with him to Liverpool, but after awhile Carr broke away from the 'doctor' and made it back to London.

Howard, your last question was in regards to as to why there weren't any previous claims against Tumblety for violating males like he did in London during 1888. I think these two examples that I presented showed that there really were previous accusations against Tumblety that were of this nature.

How Brown

05-12-2009, 04:36 PM

Howard, your last question was in regards to as to why there weren't any previous claims against Tumblety for violating males like he did in London during 1888. I think these two examples that I presented showed that there really were previous accusations against Tumblety that were of this nature.--Joltin' Joe

Thank you very much Joe...but allow me to simply state that I meant forceable assaults...and I knew he had relations with young men in the States...but thank you for bringing them up nonetheless.

Do you know whether the assault on the Lyons boy was with force as the ones in London are claimed and unproven to be? I recognize that your sentence states "atrocious assault", but in all honesty,that may simply mean, not to be indelicate or facetitious, that he either kissed him,grabbed his genitals,or simply made a move on him. If someone did something along the order of that to me (ooo,I wish:kiss:), I would define it as an atrocious assault. Then I would hammer him.

This whole issue is a "problem" area, Joe...at least to me. Bear with me....and believe me I am not trying to split hairs with anyone on the syntax of newspaper articles from 140 years ago,rather I am trying to determine something that seems to be always overlooked in the discussion on this aspect of Tumblety's behavior.

Why wasn't Tumblety tossed in prison or jail for those charges back then if there was forcible rape or assault by force ( however we want to call it) involved? Are we sure that the same sort of assault took place on the Boy in The Battery as is alleged to have happened on the Four, not one, young men in London?

Why does it take 4 charges of forcible assault for the London police to make a move on him?

Back to The Battery:

Is it not just as likely that the "shame" the boy's mother had about her son encouraged or inspired her to take action against the older man, Tumblety? For gosh sakes...the kid was a man... in college !!! As if he didn't know his own sexuality or would let Tumblety make moves on him if he was straight without flattening the Pimplemeister.....

Simon Wood

05-12-2009, 04:59 PM

Hi Howard,

Here's the case of Henry Carr, aged 18.

The Times, 1st December 1873—

5112

Regards,

Simon

How Brown

05-12-2009, 05:13 PM

Thanks Simon...and by the way,I replied to your request via email. Hopefully one of those names can help you out.

Here is an example of some young guy who nicked Tumblety's watch with a big difference than the London Quartet or the Boy In The Battery. There's no mention of young Carr being lumped up for some lovin'. The 18 year old kid probably boosted the watch for services rendered. It takes two to tango and unless one of the two ain't interested in two stepping in that direction, then its consensual....especially with 18 year old,19 year old kids. By that time,they know which way they want their wind blown.

IF they had such knowledge of Tumblety going back into the early 1870's and he used force to get some action from these young men, then how the fizzuck did he manage to get away with it all that time? If it was all true that force was used....he's also a recividist rapist besides being a master bullshit artist.

The answer may be,as I think it is, and that the sex was consensual UNTIL the youngster(s) got caught by his parent or fed up with Tumblety.

Simon Wood

05-12-2009, 05:21 PM

Hi Howard,

There seems to be a gay subtext to this story.

It would be interesting to learn how Tumblety, who was staying at the ultra posh Langham Hotel in central London, first made contact with an 18 year old carpenter who was living at home with his parents in the decidedly shabby district of Paddington.

Regards,

Simon

How Brown

05-12-2009, 05:55 PM

Simon:

I hear that,Simon. Thats a good point. It also makes me think that the liason was consensual,again...until the kid got fed up with Tumblety in one way or the other.

Back then, a parent would not be so "proud" of their queer kids as they appear to be today. The parents, regardless of economic class, would be reluctant to accept that their son or daughter was a homosexual on their own volition,so they would naturally cast the "blame" of their offspring's decision to engage in homosexual acts on the "other" guy, in this case a big hunk of flamin' homosexual named Tumblety.

Joe Chetcuti

05-12-2009, 07:45 PM

Daily Inter Ocean
November 20, 1888

(Pinkerton was doing the talking)

(Tumblety) was watched with closer scrutiny, and at last it became known that he was in the habit of indulging in certain vices that finally resulted in his being driven from (Washington DC.) The next time I met him was in Baltimore.

I met him in New York and in different other cities throughout the country and as far west as San Francisco even. In Chicago, along about '69, he was detected in indulging in the vices to which I have referred and he had to fly that city. The next time I saw him was in England in 1874. I ran across him then, accidentally, in Liverpool, and again in London. In the latter city he made a complaint to the police that a boy whom he had employed as an office boy, had stolen his watch, and the chain was a very heavy neck chain going twice around his neck...When the boy was in custody he confessed the theft but also made a statement to the police which caused a warrant to be issued for the Doctor's arrest. (Tumblety) claimed to be an American citizen. Superintendent Shaw asked me about him. I told him that the boy had undoubtedly told the truth, as the vile character the boy gave of the Doctor was just the character that he had a reputation for in the United States.

Lyons and Carr were both young victims of Tumblety's lewd vice. It's true as Howard says, "There's no mention of young Carr being lumped up for some lovin'." But we can easily figure out what was going on.

How Brown

05-12-2009, 07:51 PM

Joe:

Do you agree that its more likely than not that the sexual relations between Tumblety and this young man were of a consensual nature,given that there is no mention of Tumblety forcing him to have sex with him?

I can't understand why....if Tumblety ever physically forced,which is rape, any of these young men to have sex that he was not imprisioned or chased down and it being mentioned before his troubles with the four cases in 1888 that physical force was used..

Back to you...and by the way, my old friend...I just set up a new thread especially for you...The Belle & The Bum for Joe Chetcuti....to look at.

Joe Chetcuti

05-12-2009, 08:02 PM

Pinkerton continued to mention that after the warrant was issued for Tumblety's arrest, the 'doctor' fled to Paris, and he remained there for at least three months. Tumblety didn't retrieve his watch that had been left in the custody of the London police.

That doesn't exactly sound like the actions of an innocent man.

Simon, you've been privately asking about the 1888 Court Calendar. Just click into the link below and check out Posts 68 & 69.

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=2848&page=7 (http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=2848&page=7)

How Brown

05-12-2009, 08:06 PM

Joe:

Thanks for finding the calendar...

I wasn't arguing whether Tumblety was innocent of the charges.

I was curious whether you felt that there was any force involved...or even necessary for these young men to acquiesce to his desires.

I just don't see it. I think they saw a way to make a buck by "chickenhawking"...or were actually "turned on" by the man.

SirRobertAnderson

05-12-2009, 11:20 PM

In the latter city he made a complaint to the police that a boy whom he had employed as an office boy, had stolen his watch, and the chain was a very heavy neck chain going twice around his neck...

Just so I have the correct mental picture here: is this ur-Run DMC neck chain connected to the watch ?

Simon Wood

05-13-2009, 12:26 AM

Thank you, Joe,

The Tumblety Court Calendar you pointed me to was perfectly readable for my requirements. Thanks also to SPE for originally posting it.

One other question.

On what other official document[s] are written the dates of Dr T's four "Modern Babylon" offences?

Regards,

Simon

Nemo

05-13-2009, 03:47 AM

Hi Howard

Isn't it just a case of wanting Tumblety to go back to the US - but also, never to return under threat of imprisonment?

How Brown

05-13-2009, 05:05 AM

Dear Nemo:

You meant....

"Isn't it just a case of ( The British police ) wanting Tumblety to go back to the US - but also, never to return under threat of imprisonment?

...didn't you?

Yeah...that thought occurs to me too. Either way, he was gonna get some time in that deal in December '88. I really think they let the charges pile up before they hit him with the four counts to guarantee he would take a hike in order that he lead them to someone. I can't prove that, but at the rate we're going on these threads recently,something might pop up.

Nemo

05-13-2009, 01:34 PM

Don't forget that the Americans would have been "embarrassed" by an American Fenian travelling to Britain and committing atrocities such as dynamiting

If the British police confirmed in any way that Tumblety may be a Fenian plotter or fundraiser, then after he was forced out of Britain by the "bail conspiracy" then events would have led to him being tracked as a matter of course once he was back in the US

Simon Wood

05-13-2009, 01:41 PM

Hi All,

The "Tumblety as Ripper/Ripper suspect" scenario can best be described as wishful thinking.

The story goes that on 7th November 1888 Dr T was arrested on suspicion of being the Ripper, but insufficient evidence was found. He was then charged with four offences of gross indecency prior to being given police bail [this last is of pivotal importance to the pro-Dr T camp, as it leaves open the opportunity for him to have committed the Millers Court murder on 9th November. It also lends credence to some 25-year-old recollections in the 1913 Littlechild letter].

The next event in the story is the apparent issuance of a 14th November arrest warrant for Dr T, who on 16th November was released on bail having secured recognizances for himself in the sum of £300 [$1500].

Although there is not a jot of supporting evidence, we are told by no less an authority than the Ripper A-Z that Dr T next made a preliminary appearance at the Old Bailey on 20th November at which a date of 10th December was set for his trial. Dr T's bail was obviously good for another twenty days.

At this point Dr T must have been acutely aware of his legal fate. The consequences of the 1885 Labouchere Amendment were clear—

"Any male person who, in public or in private, commits . . . any act of gross indecency with another male person, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and being convicted thereof, shall be liable . . . to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years with or without hard labor."

Sodomy, buggery—call it what you like—was a non-extradictable offence in America. Small wonder that Dr T packed his trunk and said goodbye to the circus. With only four days at his disposal he cleared up his UK business interests, cancelled the milk and travelled to France where at Le Havre he boarded the transatlantic steamship La Bretagne bound for New York.

The problem as I see it with the foregoing is that Tumblety, charged on four counts of gross indecency, would have been equally aware of his legal fate on 7th November. So if he had conveniently been given police bail why go through the unnecessary and time-consuming rigmarole of surrendering to police bail, arranging £300 sureties and appearing at the Old Bailey? That's a mighty big waste of thirteen days when your butt's on the block.

Why not just get out of London immediately after 7th November? Dr T could have still cancelled the milk and easily caught the SS Wyoming which left Liverpool 12th November, arriving New York 22nd November.

It makes a lot more sense than him risking his freedom in a bloody coup de grace at Millers Court.

Regards,

Simon

Stan Russo

05-13-2009, 01:54 PM

Simon,

Do you believe, based on your analysis of the information at hand, that Francis Tumblety was 'JTR'?

Simon Wood

05-13-2009, 01:59 PM

Hi Stan,

No.

Regards,

Simon

Nemo

05-13-2009, 02:25 PM

Hi Simon

Didn't you post somewhere that he would need a week or 10 days or something to book the ticket - accounting for the delay?

On the Come fly with me thread I think...Here it is

"When exactly did Tumblety decide to sail to America?

History suggests after November 16th 1888, the day he was bailed.

Transatlantic travel in 1888 wasn't as easy as it is today. Dr T couldn't have skidded to a halt in a cab at Le Havre's Bassin de L'eure on 24th November 1888 demanding of La Bretagne's Captain, "Arrêtez le bateau! Let me aboard!"

You had to book ahead in 1888.

Looking through various LVP travel guides and steamship company brochures it appears that transatlantic passengers wishing to secure a berth [according to the NYT, 4th December 1888, Frank Townsend had a stateroom] had to book in advance, with a 25% deposit and the balance paid at least two weeks before sailing.

This puts Tumblety's booking with Thomas Cook or some other agent of the Compagnie Générale Transatlantique at, or before, 10th November 1888.

Or in other words—Tumblety was arrested on 7th November, murdered Kelly on 9th November, booked his ticket on 10th November, was bailed on 16th November and sailed for America on 24th November."

Wolf Vanderlinden

05-13-2009, 02:53 PM

Nemo

05-13-2009, 02:59 PM

Hi Wolf

I can go for that - Tumblety probably paid for the service so if the men denied receiving payment or consenting then I suppose they would have to say that Tumblety forced them into it

That would include possibly beating and/or restraint (force) but what about the "arms" bit?

A gun? a knife? a blunt instrument?

Whatever, it seems a much more serious charge than that for consensual sex

Do you think the police got the 4 stories together so that they somewhat coincided?

Simon Wood

05-13-2009, 03:05 PM

Hi Nemo,

Mea Culpa. I'd forgotten that. It's an excellent point to throw into the pot.

All of which suggests that Dr T would have had to book his passage with a greater lead time than that available to him on either 7th November [SS Wyoming—sailing 12th] or 20th November [SS La Bretagne—sailing 24th], especially when the latter was sailing from a foreign port [connection/travel times etc].

The more you look at Dr T's timetable the less sense it makes.

Regards,

Simon

Nemo

05-13-2009, 03:12 PM

It's an excellent point Simon about needing to book in advance - but like modern times, wouldn't a travel company be prepared to allow a "last minute" booking rather than sail with an empty cabin?

Especially if it was only a matter of one or two days difference to allow him to sail on the 24th

If there was any red-tape it could almost certainly have been overcome by a little extra money going to the right person

Simon Wood

05-13-2009, 03:18 PM

Hi Nemo,

I'm certain you're right about last-minute bookings, but we're dealing with a guy who was on the cusp of earning himself two years in the slammer with hard labour.

Personally, I'd have booked my voyage early to avoid disappointment.

Regards,

Simon

Simon Wood

05-13-2009, 03:31 PM

Hi All,

1861 Law Dictionary—

5124

Disseisin is described as—"the process of wrongfully or unlawfully dispossessing a person of his rightful real property."

Four counts of trespass, robbery and male rape at gun/knife point?

How was Dr T allowed to get away with it for almost four months?

Regards,

Simon

Nemo

05-13-2009, 03:34 PM

lol Simon

If he booked on say the 8th, wouldnt that be sufficient booking time to travel on the 24th?

The important bit he would be worried about was attending on the 14th or the bail hearing on the 16th which he may have had to attend as he was in the UK and easily located

Once he got this out of the way and breathed a sigh of relief when the £300 surety was accepted, he was free to flee on the 24th

I think if he was that desperate to get away he could/would have paid someone privately to get him across the channel to France incognito on or about the 7-8th - though he may not have had funds to do this

Simon Wood

05-13-2009, 03:51 PM

Hi Nemo,

Okay, but why loiter in London while his £300 surety was being accepted when he could have legged it and been tucked up in a cinqe etoille French hotel, safe from the extraditional grasp of the pesky Inspector Melville?

Also ask yourself why, if Dr T was such an international master of disguise who could fool London's Finest by travelling to France and America under the cunning pseudonym of Frank Townsend, the US cops and newspapers knew about it before he arrived in New York.

Regards,

Simon

Nemo

05-13-2009, 04:12 PM

We could really do with finding out who put up the bail

These two may have had early warning from Tumblety that he was going to have to skip bail because of trumped up Ripper charges against a suspicious American doctor

In turn, it may have been one of these men who alerted the press that he was on his way

Alternatively, Tumblety may have used his American journalist/police "aquaintances" to pass the message on - with the resultant consequences

He may have appealed to any fellow American countrymen he knew, or could find, to help him return to the US to beat what he probably described as totally unfounded charges - so letting the cat out of the bag before he had actually fled

Simon Wood

05-13-2009, 04:20 PM

Hi Nemo,

We're told by I forget who that Dr T's bail money was wired from America, where on his death he had $138,000 tucked up in Clews Bank. If so, the £300 [$1500] bail would have been "on his own recognizance" and not have required bondsmen.

So let me ask the question—

Where, apart from US press reports, did the story of the two bondsmen originate?

Regards,

Simon

How Brown

05-13-2009, 04:44 PM

Regarding the “indecent assault with force and arms” bit of Tumblety’s charges. I don’t want to put words into anyone’s mouth but I recall (I think) that SPE once suggested that the “force and arms” may have been made up by the authorities in order for the four “victims” to testify against the good doctor without having to admit that they were male prostitutes, or at least willing participants.-Wolf Vanderlinden

Thanks Wolf...because Nina and I have been also wondering whether the charges in Britain in regard to homosexual behavior and which specifically involved minors would automatically have the label " indecent assault with force" attached to it regardless of whether there was any actual violence or force involved in order to nip that stuff in the bud.

Let me ask the Forums' Brits a question here....or anyone else familiar with these laws....and a little ramblin' to boot...

Had these four individuals in London been over 21 years of age,engaging in the same sort of behavior and found out in the same exact way, then would there be the same sort of "labeling" affixed to these acts?

I understand what Wolf recalled and/or what SPE is referring to and in fact,its in line with what I am trying to determine about the nature of the offenses in London.

If Tumblety didn't have to resort to force to get these four people to comply with his sexual requests...then the Police, as SPE or someone else may have suggested if it wasn't SPE...trumped up the beefs to guarantee that Tumblety would swing by his sack for the indictment.

Thats exactly what I think happened and it makes sense to me...since I cannot understand how the London police would tolerate 3 counts of aggravated assault on men...actually rape if we look at it correctly....by Tumblety...with the awareness we have that as Littlechild himself stated...they had a dossier on the man.

Anyone else think this scenario is kosher? That the police embellished the actual charges to guarantee Tumblety would swing...

....and with the awareness that there was no way that Tumbelty would consider going to jail...and that he would leave London for good?

Has anyone also considered the possibility that the police approached Tumbelty with a phony beef regarding the WM...the alleged arrest based on his "wideawake hat" and all that jazz...just to put the fear of God in him and hope he would get the message and get out of town?