|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
John Savage
Sergeant
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 47
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 24, 2003 - 9:23 am: |       |
Martin,
Regarding the question of "police bail" although I do not know when this was introduced magistrates appear to have had the ability to release people on bail as the following extract shows:
"Eighteen men were taken into custody by the police in a midnight raid in Fitzroy Street on Sunday August 12th 1894, two of them being men in femine clothing. The prisoners were taken to Tottenham Court Road Police Station and were brought up at Marlborough Street before Mr. Hannay, the magistrate, on the following morning........... Mr. Hannay granted remand for a week. He said there seemed to be something more than suspicion against five of the men found in the basement, but for the rest he would like something more definite in the charge when the accused next came before him. Superintendent Sheppard in reply said 'They are most of them known, your worship' Some of the accused were then relased on their own recognisances; others had to find sureties in the sum of £5"
Whilst this is by no means a definitive statement of the law in 1888, I think it gives some insight into the practice of releasing suspects on bail.
Regards,
John Savage |
Martin Fido
Sergeant
Username: Fido
Post Number: 32
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 24, 2003 - 9:44 am: | |
Hi John!
It was Labouchere's Amendment that replaced the old statute making "the abominable crime of buggery" capital.
Hi RJP!
Yes, the authorities gave Wilde every chance to make the classic removal to Dieppe, which he tipsily refused, following his batty mother's insistence that he must not lose a case by default as his father had done. (By the way, Ellman wickedly used my book on Wilde without acknowledgement - something I didn't realize until he telephoned me with a question shortly before his death).
Thereafter, however, they hired a really top-notch lawyer to prosecute, and Mr Justice Wills, giving the maximum sentence on Wilde, offered the nasty obiter dictum that in his opinion it was not nearly long enough.
Hi John, mk2!
This is magistrate's bail, and is therefore recorded. Stewart describes a polcie bail - apparently offered at police discretion, and so presumably only recorded in station day books (or whatever) which, alas, have not survived (except for one, useless for our purposes, held as an example in the Metropolitan Police Museum at Charlton).
Very good point about Marlborough Street.
All the best,
Martin F
|
R.J. Palmer
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 87
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 24, 2003 - 11:14 pm: | |
Gentlemen, unfortunately I'll be away for a spell, but I'd like to post the following before leaving. Respond if you like.
As Tumblety's 1888 arrest potentially gives him an "alibi" for November 9th, I agree that the details about the arrest & bail are quite important. I'm certainly no expert in English Law, but having had an interest in this particular question I've had the help of a friend who knows a heck of a lot more than I do about such things.
Sodomy was an offence that carried
a life sentence and one would not have received bail, period. (This offence came under Section 61 of the Offences Against the Person Act, 1861)
Dr. T was, instead, charged with indecent assault and gross indecency (Section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885). This was a misdemeanour and that carried a maximum sentence of only two years imprisonment.
Just to be entirely clear, the records do exist, and show that T. was charged with a misdemeanour, and not the serious offense of sodomy.
On the point of "police bail."
My notes read "Under The Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, Section 38, there was the facility for police to grant bail for
lesser offences, requiring the prisoner to return for charge after the police had completed their inquiries."
In short, in 1888, it does appear that Tumblety could have been out on police bail for the above charges.
While it's always good to eliminate suspects, on this particulary issue I'd say that Tumblety doesn't have an alibi for the 9th.
And, of course, Littlechild knew of these charges against Tumblety--he mentions them in his letter to Sims. As this information would have been a prominent part of the 'dossier,' I think we can take it for granted that Littlechild knew his 'likely suspect' wasn't in police custody. --Best wishes, RP
|
Stephen P. Ryder
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 2747
Registered: 10-1997
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 24, 2003 - 11:41 pm: | |
The following scans are from The Metropolitan Police Guide - 1896:
(I'm just thrilled to finally find a use for this enormous book!)
Stephen P. Ryder, Editor
Casebook: Jack the Ripper |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Sergeant
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 40
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 25, 2003 - 12:04 am: | |
Hi. Stephen
So the question of whether Tumblety was at liberty or in custody at the time of the murder of MJK comes down to whether the offense he was charged with was considered by the authorities involved to be of a serious nature. This is subjective.
Note that the footnote to Section 62 states "If there is consent there cannot be an assault;"
Interesting!
Best Regards
Gary
|
Martin Fido
Sergeant
Username: Fido
Post Number: 40
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 25, 2003 - 7:21 am: | |
Many thanks to all for the clarifications.
I guess it comes down to beng a matter of personal inclination whether one thinks it likely that the police would or would not have bailed Tumblety after charging him with gross indecency, just as it is only going to be personal inclination that determines whether one thinks the NY Times claim that he was arrested on suspicion of being JtR is a fact or a canard.
I agree that the boys in question were probably rent boys, and remain intrigued by the observation that this came under the jurisdiction of Marlborough Street magistrates.
All the best,
Martin F |
Stephen P. Ryder
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 2748
Registered: 10-1997
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 25, 2003 - 10:16 am: | |
I could be wrong, but I don't think the 4 men pressed charges against Tumblety. I've always taken it to be that Tumblety was "caught in the act" with these four men, all of whom were separately charged.
If Tumblety had attempted sodomy with 4 unwilling participants, as per the above posts, he would likely have been charged with the much greater offense of "Attempt to commit an infamous crime." If he had attempted some other form of homosexual contact with an unwilling participant, I'm not sure if that would also fall under the "buggery" statute.
The charge of "gross indecency," at least as I read it, seems to indicate that all five members of the party were willing participants.
Stephen P. Ryder, Editor
Casebook: Jack the Ripper |
John Savage
Sergeant
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 48
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 25, 2003 - 11:28 am: | |
Hi All,
There seems to be some confusion regarding, sodomy and gross indecency. Put simply sodomy or buggery refers to anal penetration. Gross indecency would include (but not neccesarily be limited to) mutual masterbation and fellatio.
As Tumblety was charged with gross indecency there is no reason to suppose that anyone was raped, or even penetrated. I think the most likely thing to have happened is that Tumblety and the others were caught together, perhaps in a public convenience, all as it were; "with their trousers down"
Regards,
John Savage
|
Valerie S
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 25, 2003 - 10:32 am: | |
Hi Stephen!
I wrote that message before everything else was said. Look at the date. I guess I need to get on the ball and register.
If these men were prostitutes, would there not have been charges filed against them for prostitution as well? And wouldn't the acts be considered "consensual"?
Valerie |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Sergeant
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 43
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 25, 2003 - 7:07 pm: | |
Hi. Valerie
I believe that if there was consent then no-one of the participants could charge any of the others with assualt. The authorities would still be free however, to charge the whole lot with gross indecency. Which is exactly what appears to have happened. Does this distinction make sense?
I agree with the statements of those who say it was probably a group of men caught "with their pants down".
As far as whether the authorities would have considred the offense bailable or conversely of a serious nature, it is pure speculation on my part but I would think it possible that Tumblety might have been held without bail if he was a known miscreant to the authorities with a past history of offenses.
Best
Gary |
John Savage
Sergeant
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 49
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 26, 2003 - 6:21 am: | |
Valerie
There is no evidence to say that the men charged along with Tumblety were prostitutes, they may have been or they may not, the only way to find out would be to seek out details of their trial.
Regarding 'consent' the law at that time made all homosexual acts between men ilegal, consent did not come into it and would have been no defence.
Gary - I hope that posts on this thread have shown that there was, at least, a likely chance that Tumbelty could have been bailed; therefore the argument that he could not have killed Mary Kelly because he was in prison does not stand up.
Regards,
John Savage} |
Martin Fido
Sergeant
Username: Fido
Post Number: 43
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 26, 2003 - 6:42 am: | |
Dear Valerie,
Prostitution is not (and in 1888 was not) a crime in England. Soliciting for an immoral purpose is. Keeping premises at which more than one prostitute can work is. Posting notices offensive to the public is. But, with the sort of compromising caution that the English see as our moderation and other nations see as our hypocrisy, English law harrasses prostitution without prohibiting it.
A rent boy arrested in 1888 could be charged with gross indecency or sodomy (though the Wilde and Cleveland Street cases show that the authorities were more interested in prosecuting/persecuting their posh clients). But there was (and is) no offence of accepting or requesting money or gifts in return for sexual favours.
All the best,
Martin F |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Sergeant
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 45
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 26, 2003 - 8:54 am: | |
Hi. John
I agree that there is a very reasonable chance that Tumblety could have been out on bail at the time MJK was killed.
I was careful to indicate that it was my opinion and nothing more that the authorities may have held him over because of his background. There are just too many variables to state anything with certainty.
Best Regards
Gary |
Valerie S
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, June 26, 2003 - 7:08 am: | |
I see, I misread the pages Stephen P. Ryder scanned and posted. Now I see consent had nothing to do with his charges. Thanks for yur patience!
I did a little reading on Oscar Wilde's case yesterday. Was Lord Alfred Douglas even named in his charges? Or, was the only person named in his charges Alfred Taylor? I know Lord Alfred Douglas got away without any charges brought against him. The whole ordeal was so unjust it saddens me. I'm glad things have changed.
Valerie
|
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Sergeant
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 47
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 27, 2003 - 4:18 am: | |
Hi. Valerie
Don't worry about misreading statutes, attorneys do it all the time. Thats one reason they're always bickering.
The Oscar Wilde case was a disgrace and an exercise in hypocrisy . Pherhaps Martin is up to date on the details. It's been a while since I've read anything on it.
All the Best
Gary |
Martin Fido
Sergeant
Username: Fido
Post Number: 47
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 27, 2003 - 8:08 am: | |
Lord Alfred Douglas was not charged in the Wilde case. His father, Lord Queensberry who started the problem by leaving the card reading "To Oscar Wilde, posing as a somdomite [sic]" (or some such wording) with the porter of Wilde's club would not actually have wanted Bosie dragged up in court. When Wilde sued Queensberry for libel, the private detective Q engaged - (none other than our very own Tumbletonian Littlechild in retirement) - did not go nosing into Bosie's activities, but checked out the commercial sex world, and so came up with Alfrd Taylor and the resnt boys who had used his Westminster house of gay and transvestite assignation. Bosie was desperately keen to give character evidence on Wilde's behalf, but was very wisely prevented.
All the best,
Martin F |
John Ruffels
Detective Sergeant
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 67
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 27, 2003 - 10:19 pm: | |
Greetings All,
An interesting discussion of police bail. Particularly Stephen P Ryder's little-used book.
I am confused by the conflicting fact, Tumblety would not have been given police bail if he was
known to have committed any offences before.
Tumblety apparently was a frequent visitor to London, and on these occasions was constantly brought under the notice of police, there being a large dossier concerning him at Scotland Yard.(His feelings towards women were bitter in the extreme.A fact on record.).
Am I correct in believing Tumblety, whilst brought to police notice on countless occasions, and despite his being the subject of a thick police dossier, was never charged prior to November 7th, 1888?
Surely, if this were the case, the senior policeman on duty at the arresting police station, would have been familiar with Tumblety's activities?
Or was the fact he was charged at Marlborough Street, where he might have been unknown, the reason, for his misdemeanor offence? And the reason he needed to jump bail before they found out?
Sorry if these questions are uninformed. |
Martin Fido
Detective Sergeant
Username: Fido
Post Number: 51
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 28, 2003 - 8:10 am: | |
I didn't know about the thick dossier on Tumblety, John. Presuming it's survived, it seems a pity that Stewart and Keith didn't give us its contents in the invaluable Source Book (unless they actually did, and I've overlooked a MEPO file number sourcing their collection of Tumbletonian newpaper cuttings). There seems to me a place for another book of sources on suspects - especially what I would call the serious ones. There are asylum records, newspaper articles, and other things that are not easily accessible to all and whose absence may lead to misleading impressions of the various suspects. It's amazing, for example, how few people are aware that Donston Stephenson's "The Patristic Gospels" is actually a translation (or collation of translations) of the evangelists based on a new principle of textual criticism, and not a book of pietistic theology.
All the best,
Martin Fido} |
John Savage
Detective Sergeant
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 51
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 28, 2003 - 9:58 am: | |
Hi John Ruffels
When talking about someone being "known" to the police, this can be taken to mean either that the person in question has previous convictions, or that the police have kept a file of information because the person is suspected.
In the case of an application for bail only previous convictions may be brought up. However I do agree that it would be very interesting to know what was contained inside that large dossier.
Regards,
John Savage |
Chris Scott
Inspector
Username: Chris
Post Number: 277
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 28, 2003 - 5:40 pm: | |
Hi Martin
I think John R meant (and forgive me John for pitting words in your mouth if I am wrong) that the Tumblety dossier did exist but is now lost
The passage in his post is a quote from the Littlechild letter which says:
He was an American quack named Tumblety and was at one time 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.
Regards
Chris S |
John Ruffels
Detective Sergeant
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 68
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 28, 2003 - 9:38 pm: | |
Hello To Martin, John & Chris S,
Thank you all for your helpful insights.
Had I made my question clearer that might have helped.
I suppose a refined version is: when did the thick dossier on Francis Tumblety exist? And who
controlled it? Was it an anti Fennian investigation carried out by Littlechild's Special Branch and his men?
If this was the case, then any number of Inspectors in charge of Police Stations were not in a position to know that Tumblety-type persons
were more vital objects of interest than just moral deameanour suspects.
In other words, given Special Branch's secrecy, the local head policeman would not know Tumblety could have been regarded as more than a menial
criminal.In fact, it would have been a useful
occasion to seize Tumblety on this misdemeanour
crime and use it as a "fishing expedition" to gather evidence of his other crimes.
I guess what I am saying is, that Littlechild knew of a thick dossier on Tumblety (was he speaking retrospectively? After the suspicion of Fennian and Ripper involvements?),but the system
did not allow that very important knowledge to pass down to Station Inspectors, who could have
used it to refuse Tumblety bail.
One would think that with suspected links to the Lincoln assassination, the Fennian bombings in London, AND the Jack The Ripper murders, Tumblety's picture would have been posted up outside every cop-shop in England! |
Robert Charles Linford
Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 342
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 29, 2003 - 2:27 pm: | |
Hi Chris
In slightly similar vein to Martin's book idea, I was wondering whether it would be possible for the census material posted by yourself and others to be collected and stored alphabetically in a separate place on the Casebook. Then if we wanted to look at, say, Cohens or Lawendes or Barnetts, we could just go straight there. I'm computer illiterate - maybe this has already been done, or maybe it's not technically possible.
NB I am NOT suggesting you type the whole lot up again!
Robert |
Chris Scott
Inspector
Username: Chris
Post Number: 278
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 29, 2003 - 3:07 pm: | |
Hi Robert
I wouldnt have a problem with that
All the stuff Ive found I have on file so it should be pretty straightforward to compile it
I am in the process of doing a major indexing exercise on the 1891 census and am hoping to post that as well
Chris
|
Robert Charles Linford
Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 344
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 29, 2003 - 3:39 pm: | |
That's great, Chris. Thanks.
Robert |
Stephen P. Ryder
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 2754
Registered: 10-1997
| | Posted on Monday, June 30, 2003 - 7:38 am: | |
(Tumblety's charge sheet can be found by clicking here.)
--------------------------------------------------
From an email by SPE:
There seems to be a slight difficulty in people understanding the charges brought against Tumblety. All four offences involving four different men were NOT committed at the same time. They were four separate offences committed on four DIFFERENT dates, in London, as follows -
1. On Friday 27 July 1888 with Albert Fisher.
2. On Friday 31 August 1888 with Arthur Brice.
3. On Sunday 14 October 1888 with James Crowley.
4. On Friday 2 November 1888 with John Doughty.
It would seem that Tumblety would have been arrested for the latter offence (although it may have been one of the others) on 7 November 1888 and the other offences would have been disclosed by police investigation. Thus it would be a typical scenario where police bail was (and is) used. The offences were misdemeanours, as explained, and not serious offences such as a felony would be. The common police practice would be to release the defendant on bail while they investigated the offence he was arrested for and others revealed in order to gather enough evidence to charge the offences when he answered his bail.
This was a new offence created by Section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885 and it is possible that the police had not yet charged anyone with it. It was a notoriously difficult offence to prove as for such an offence the only witness (and therefore the only
evidence) was probably an injured party who also committed a similar offence or aided and abetted it (usually male prostitutes who were paid by the offender). This may well explain why the charges against Tumblety included the wording "with Force and Arms" suggesting that Tumblety forced his victims to commit the offences with him, thus allowing them to be witnesses against him. (e.g. - "I've got this big knife and if you don't indulge in indecency with me I will stab you.")
This seems very unlikely as the four men were much more likely to be willing participants who Tumblety was paying. So there is a hint that the charges against Tumblety may have been engineered so that the four men could appear as witnesses against him rather than co-defendants.
We simply do not know the nature of the alleged offences against Tumblety but it is interesting to note the days on which they occurred, all Fridays and a Sunday, and that they covered a date period from the end of July 1888 to early November 1888, thus covering a period similar to the murders and on similar days (in one case, the second, an actual date of a murder).
Stephen P. Ryder, Editor
Casebook: Jack the Ripper |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
