top of page

The Escape of 'Frank Townsend'

Here's a question for all the Tumblety experts. Why did the good doctor bother using a false name when he fled to America?  You might think that the answer is a very simple one, namely to avoid arrest, but my contention is that he could not legally have been stopped from boarding a ship from England to France or from France to America.

 

When Tumblety was bailed (from prison) on 16 November 1888, he would have been bailed to appear at the next sessions of the Central Criminal Court, due to commence on 19 November 1888. He did not appear but, on 20 November, the bail was extended (respited) for his appearance at the Central Criminal Court on 10 December (CRIM 6/17).  There were no restrictions on his movements in the meantime.  As long as he appeared at the Old Bailey at the appointed time, he was free to go wherever he wanted.  According to 'Principles of the Criminal Law' by Seymour Harris (1886):

 

'This admitting to bail consists in the delivery (or bailment) of a person to his sureties, on their giving security (he also entering into his own recognizances) for his appearance at the time and place of his trial, there to surrender and take his trial. In the meantime, he is allowed to be at large; being supposed to remain in their [i.e. his sureties] friendly custody.'

 

An interesting case occurred at the Spring Assizes on the South-Eastern Circuit in Hertford in March 1877 (as reported in the Times of 7 March 1877) when a French defendant, Paul Bayert, charged with soliciting a man to murder his parents, did not appear at the court to surrender to his recognizances, having been bailed on committal.  His Counsel claimed that, upon being admitted to bail, he had gone to France to see his family and had become confused about the time he was required to attend at the court because the Spring Assizes had started earlier than normal.

 

The prosecution, however, applied for his recognizances to be estreated, and a bench warrant issued for his arrest, on the basis that 'the accused had absconded and gone out of the country'.  However, upon saying this, the prosecution counsel, Montague Williams, was chided by the judge who told him 'You must not say "absconded", though he may have left the country; for it was stated yesterday that he intended to return at the time he left the country.'  Williams replied that 'he was satisfied from what he had heard that the accused would not appear, and in those circumstances he asked his Lordship to order him to be called on his recognizances, 'and on his non-appearance to order the recognizances to be estreated.'  The judge declined to do this and instead, after receiving confirmation from the defence Counsel that his sureties were willing to continue bail, he respited the recognizances to the next assizes and refused to issue a bench warrant.

 

Needless to say, Bayert failed to appear at the next sessions and his recognizances were estreated (HO 140/38) but the point is that there was no reason why a defendant to a criminal action could not leave the country prior to the commencement of his trial. Thus, Tumblety could easily have boarded a ship under his own name without any fear of consequences.

 

It was not until a bench warrant was issued for his arrest  - which it was on 10 December 1888 (Evening Post, 10 December 1888), long after he had left England - that a police officer would have been entitled to detain Tumblety.  Legally, that officer would have needed to be in physical possession of the warrant to make the arrest (see the fourth part of my Quadrilogy).

 

For that reason, those who make a fuss of the fact that Tumblety, a man of striking physical appearance, was so easily able to evade the police are making a false point. Tumblety could have waved goodbye to detectives Froest and Dinnie from Dover, given them a kiss on each cheek, and there was nothing they could have done to stop him.

 

Now, it is possible that Tumblety did not know the law and, indeed, within Home Office files there is correspondence in which it is mentioned that it is lucky that criminals were not fully familiar with legal procedure otherwise they could take advantage of many rules to their benefit.  It may also be that Tumblety was worried that, if he was spotted leaving England, the authorities could have obtained a warrant to have him arrested in France before he was able to leave Havre, hence he thought it prudent to travel under the name of Frank Townsend.

 

The fact of the matter, however, is that, in the absence of a warrant to arrest him, the police were powerless to prevent his leaving for the United States. Nothing in his bail conditions would have stopped him doing so and consequently he could not have been stopped.  Strange but true!

LORD ORSAM

First published: 18 November 2015

©2024 by Orsam Music for Bubblegumelicious.

Created with Wix.com

The Sagar Saga: Finding the Missing Ling

In January 1905, former City detective inspector Robert Sagar, who had just retired, apparently gave interviews to reporters of four London newspapers in which he spoke of his knowledge of Jack the Ripper. 

Sagar 1.jpg

The articles containing these interviews, while very similar (indicating that they must have taken place at the same time) are all, nevertheless, a little bit different from each other and, in October 2020, Chris Phillips prepared a helpful comparison of the four reports featured side by side, which can be found here [Chris has now updated them to include the Evening News here].  He had, however, only located three reports from London newspapers, but was aware that there must have been a fourth report because such a report (different from the other three) was carried by some American newspapers, hence he included the Seattle Daily Times (of 4 February 1905) as his fourth report.

I have, however, now located the additional report in a London newspaper.  It was in the Evening News of Saturday, 7 January 1905.  It's not identical to the Seattle Daily Times report but it's close enough, especially in respect of the bit about Jack the Ripper, that, for comparison purposes, what Chris has labelled the Seattle Times report, can be regarded as the Evening News report.  There are, nevertheless, some important differences between the two which I will be discussing. 

So the four "interview" reports with Sagar that we have, are:

1. City Press of Saturday, 7 January, 1905.

2. Evening News of Saturday, 7 January, 1905.

3. Morning Leader of Monday, 9 January, 1905.

4. Daily News of Monday, 9 January, 1905 

A quick glance through these reports reveals that one of them is, curiously, very different to the others.

While the reports in the Evening News, Morning Leader and Daily News all contain quotes from Sagar, the City Press does not.  Its report is written purely in the third person, with no hint that its reporter had ever even spoken to the former detective.

The Morning Leader on the other hand tells us that, 'To a "Morning Leader" representative Mr. Sagar related some of his experiences'.  The Daily News is even more explicit as to when its reporter spoke to Sagar.  Hence, we are told that Sagar spoke to 'a representative of 'The Daily News on Saturday'.

That would seem to make sense.  All four reporters spoke to Robert Sagar on Saturday, 7 January 1905, right?

WRONG!

That's impossible. 

The City Press newspaper was published early on Saturday morning, so that it could not possibly have interviewed Sagar on Saturday and carried a report of the interview in its Saturday edition.  Here is the proof that the City Press was published on Saturday morning in January 1905:

Sagar 2.jpg

I'm a paragraph. Click here to add your own text and edit me. It's easy.

I'm a paragraph. Click here to add your own text and edit me. It's easy.

I'm a paragraph. Click here to add your own text and edit me. It's easy.

bottom of page