Was Tumblety in Jail during the Kelly Murder?

[Batman]

During the Whitechapel murders Pinkerton was in London. Meaning at the time. Meaning he was there when the murders were happening. He is recounting what he learned.

Pinkerton isn't just a witness to this. He is an 'expert' witness because of his function.

[Trevor Marriott]

Salt Lake Herold on November 21, 1888.

During the murders Pinkerton was in London.

The Chicago Daily Inter Ocean 20 November, 1888. More of Pinkerton on JtR and Tumblety.

At the time of the murders dear boy, not after, and you like Mike Hawley seek to use unreliable secondary sources i.e newspapers

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Batman]

When and how did Tumblety become a suspect for the ripper murders ? The answer is no one knows.But there are pointers as to show whether he ever was a suspect.

Salt Lake Herold on November 21, 1888.

During the murders Pinkerton was in London.

The Chicago Daily Inter Ocean 20 November, 1888. More of Pinkerton on JtR and Tumblety.

[Trevor Marriott]

Thanks but I didn't really need to be reminded of that Trevor. I thought Mike Hawley's point was that Tumblety was originally arrested on suspicion of the Whitechapel murders without a warrant but then discharged and re-arrested again for gross indecency without a warrant. But then you were saying that was not possible. Maybe I have misunderstood, it is all quite complicated.



In circumstances where the Commissioner had been discussing with the Home Secretary about committing illegal acts to catch the murderer I'm not really sure that in early November 1888 the police would have been too worried about a claim for unlawful arrest if they suspected they had the Ripper.

I think this whole issue of trying to suggest Tumbely could have been arrested on Nov 7th for anything else other than the Gross Indecency offences needs to be put in a different perspective because there a some here who seem to be clutching at straws in an attempt to suggest otherwise.

Playing devils advocate here the first question is

When and how did Tumblety become a suspect for the ripper murders ? The answer is no one knows.But there are pointers as to show whether he ever was a suspect.

Lets look at the murders in line with what we know of Tumblety and his movements. Firstly his movements and the police surveillance.

The police surveillance started sometime in July and went through to at least Nov 2nd. His first offence and charge of Gross Indeceny was committed on 27th July

Tabram murdered Aug 7th

We know that Nicholls was killed on Aug 31. and we know that he was charged with an offence relating to that date so could there have been any suspicion on him up until then -NO If there had have been the police would have acted. Or they would have paid him greater attention in perhaps trying to catch him red handed.

The next murder was Chapman Sept 7th and the double event on Sept 30th
Any suspicion on him between Aug 31st and Sept 30th NO

If there had have been any suspicion on him for any of the aforementioned murders he could have been arrested because the police knew where he was to be found, and besides if they had him under surveillance they would be aware of where he was at the material times.

The next offence he commits is Oct 14th and the last offence Nov 2nd.It is after this offence I suggest they made the application to a magistrate for a warrant. which they executed on Nov 7th

So we have several big times gaps between the last murders where the police were watching him and had every opportunity to arrest him for the murders again they knew where he was they didn't arrest

So therefore any suspicion could only have occurred between Nov 2-7th and that doesn't seem feasible having regards to all of the above taken in proper context and disregarding this ridiculous smoke screen about him being arrested for being a vagrant etc etc.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

It does support your point.

The key law, which would covered the arresting constables arse was Section 4 of the 1824 Vagrancy Act, aka the sus law, which stated that "every suspected person or reputed thief, frequenting any river, canal, or navigable stream, dock, or basin, or any quay, wharf, or warehouse near or adjoining thereto, or any street, highway, or avenue leading thereto, or any place of public resort, or any avenue leading thereto, or any street, or any highway or any place adjacent to a street or highway; with intent to commit an arrestable offence" shall be deemed a Rogue and a Vagabond, and liable for arrest and, if found guilty, 3 months imprisonment.

In other words, if a constable had reasonable suspicion of a person, irrelevant if the criminal act had been, or the constable suspected was about to be committed, he had the power to stop, search and, with valid reason, arrest.

The sus law was, essentially, the law which covered grey areas, and because of that it was the most commonly cited law by arresting officers, and the most abused. Its became notorious in the 1970s and 1980s due to its use in regards to the harassment of young black men in the inner cities, which lead to the riots at Brixton and Toxteth, to name just two.

It was repealed in the early 80s.

Monty

Emphasis on valid reason and of course any person so arrested would be taken to a police station and not interviewed but simply charged and detained for court if the circumstances surrounding the arrest were justified other wise that person would be released.

[Monty]

Cheers Jon,

However that last post of mine was written in the wee small hours, apologies for its state.

Monty

[jmenges]

Thanks for these most recent contributions, Monty. Extremely interesting.


JM

[Monty]

Thank you for that helpful as ever clarification Monty, but does that not in a strange way actually support the more substantial point I was making? I mean, if the code applied to all ranks then does that not mean an officer had a certain amount of discretion under the code due to the phrase "under ordinary circumstances"? Who would decide if it's "ordinary circumstances" or not? Surely the arresting officer, no? In which case, it's plausible under the 1889 code that someone could be arrested for a misdemeanour without a warrant, despite not being caught in the act (whereas we don't see that same discretion in the 1912 code).

It does support your point.

The key law, which would covered the arresting constables arse was Section 4 of the 1824 Vagrancy Act, aka the sus law, which stated that "every suspected person or reputed thief, frequenting any river, canal, or navigable stream, dock, or basin, or any quay, wharf, or warehouse near or adjoining thereto, or any street, highway, or avenue leading thereto, or any place of public resort, or any avenue leading thereto, or any street, or any highway or any place adjacent to a street or highway; with intent to commit an arrestable offence" shall be deemed a Rogue and a Vagabond, and liable for arrest and, if found guilty, 3 months imprisonment.

In other words, if a constable had reasonable suspicion of a person, irrelevant if the criminal act had been, or the constable suspected was about to be committed, he had the power to stop, search and, with valid reason, arrest.

The sus law was, essentially, the law which covered grey areas, and because of that it was the most commonly cited law by arresting officers, and the most abused. Its became notorious in the 1970s and 1980s due to its use in regards to the harassment of young black men in the inner cities, which lead to the riots at Brixton and Toxteth, to name just two.

It was repealed in the early 80s.

Monty

[David Orsam]

I might remind you that the police could arrest for murder without a warrant so there would be no need to apply the law regarding the arrest for misdemeanors.

Thanks but I didn't really need to be reminded of that Trevor. I thought Mike Hawley's point was that Tumblety was originally arrested on suspicion of the Whitechapel murders without a warrant but then discharged and re-arrested again for gross indecency without a warrant. But then you were saying that was not possible. Maybe I have misunderstood, it is all quite complicated.

But would there be any point in arresting a person without any evidence to justify the arrest, other than to perhaps verify that persons details, and that could perhaps have led to claims of unlawful arrest against the police.

In circumstances where the Commissioner had been discussing with the Home Secretary about committing illegal acts to catch the murderer I'm not really sure that in early November 1888 the police would have been too worried about a claim for unlawful arrest if they suspected they had the Ripper.

[David Orsam]

The term 'constable' covered all ranks to Assistant Commissioner, and not solely restricted to the lowest rank of Police Constable. Its confusing as many simply see Constable as purely a rank, when, in fact, it is not. So, technically, an Inspector or DI is a constable as well.

Thank you for that helpful as ever clarification Monty, but does that not in a strange way actually support the more substantial point I was making? I mean, if the code applied to all ranks then does that not mean an officer had a certain amount of discretion under the code due to the phrase "under ordinary circumstances"? Who would decide if it's "ordinary circumstances" or not? Surely the arresting officer, no? In which case, it's plausible under the 1889 code that someone could be arrested for a misdemeanour without a warrant, despite not being caught in the act (whereas we don't see that same discretion in the 1912 code).

[Monty]

Another thing to consider are the words "under ordinary circumstances". Now, if, in the midst of the most serious and extensive murder investigation the country had ever known, you think you might have just arrested Jack the Ripper, would that be an "ordinary circumstance"? The police code was, of course, aimed at constables (and article 4 is specifically stated to be directed at constables) and, while the general principles of the law applied to all officers, I would have thought that a senior officer, of the rank of inspector/detective-inspector or above, would have been given quite a lot of latitude by a magistrate in exercising his discretion as to whether the circumstances in which an arrest was made without a warrant were ordinary or not.

The term 'constable' covered all ranks to Assistant Commissioner, and not solely restricted to the lowest rank of Police Constable. Its confusing as many simply see Constable as purely a rank, when, in fact, it is not. So, technically, an Inspector or DI is a constable as well.

Commissioner was, until the 1974 (or there abouts, I cannot recall precisely) actually a Justice of the Peace. After the 1974, the Commissioner became a sworn constable, and was able to effect an arrest. Today's Met Commissioner, Sir Bernard Bogan-Howe, did just that last year when he arrest a taxi fare dodger.

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

Another thing to consider are the words "under ordinary circumstances". Now, if, in the midst of the most serious and extensive murder investigation the country had ever known, you think you might have just arrested Jack the Ripper, would that be an "ordinary circumstance"? The police code was, of course, aimed at constables (and article 4 is specifically stated to be directed at constables) and, while the general principles of the law applied to all officers, I would have thought that a senior officer, of the rank of inspector/detective-inspector or above, would have been given quite a lot of latitude by a magistrate in exercising his discretion as to whether the circumstances in which an arrest was made without a warrant were ordinary or not.

I might remind you that the police could arrest for murder without a warrant so there would be no need to apply the law regarding the arrest for misdemeanors.

But would there be any point in arresting a person without any evidence to justify the arrest, other than to perhaps verify that persons details, and that could perhaps have led to claims of unlawful arrest against the police.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

But Littlechild was clear, there was an extensive dossier on Tumblety at Scotland Yard. Might it only have been in CID? Maybe, but it would have been physically impossible for Littlechild to have been wrong, since we have record of Tumblety in trouble with the law in England. How coincidental, though, it was the Head of Special Branch, and Tumblety was an Irish-American.

Still haven't attempted to deal with the elephant in the room. Do you accept the Sir George Arthur story or not?

No one is suggesting Littlechild was wrong.

Why don't you accept the fact that the file Littlechild referred to was the large file prepared by the police who had him under surveillance and who subsequently put the case together based on all that research into his gross indecency activities

And what does this story about Sir George entail with reference to me and the topic here ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[David Orsam]

Another thing to consider are the words "under ordinary circumstances". Now, if, in the midst of the most serious and extensive murder investigation the country had ever known, you think you might have just arrested Jack the Ripper, would that be an "ordinary circumstance"? The police code was, of course, aimed at constables (and article 4 is specifically stated to be directed at constables) and, while the general principles of the law applied to all officers, I would have thought that a senior officer, of the rank of inspector/detective-inspector or above, would have been given quite a lot of latitude by a magistrate in exercising his discretion as to whether the circumstances in which an arrest was made without a warrant were ordinary or not.

[GUT]

Just on a point of order, and for clarification in this interesting thread, the above extract from the Police Code seems to me to have been taken from the 1912 edition (i.e. the 15th edition, available online) under the heading "Apprehension" at article 5.

The equivalent article in the 1889 edition, however, which is the 6th edition, and which may or may not have been applicable in 1888, has different wording as follows:

"A constable in whose presence a misdemeanour is committed may also arrest the offender without warrant, if the circumstances render such a course necessary and the delinquent is not known. But mere information of the commission of a misdemeanour, except escape from custody or attempted felonies of a serious character, should not under ordinary circumstances be followed by arrest, unless a warrant has been obtained."

(This is article 4 under "Apprehension" in the 6th edition).

Thank you David was having trouble grasping a proposition that on offender "Caught in the Act" couldn't e arrested on the spot.