Was Tumblety in Jail during the Kelly Murder?

[Trevor Marriott]

Let's say you're right. He was never suspected. However if he was in custody at the time of the MJK murder that would put him in the clear.

Yet not one newspaper was able to get this scoop?

Not one reporter learned this to overturn the masses of journalism to the opposite?

Is it investigators interests to have false stories flood the press?

How could this one variable, a crucial one, that he was in jail, get completely omitted?

Do things not make more sense to say he wasn't in jail at the time but was out on a bail that he later skipped?

If he was never arrested or suspected of the ripper crimes in November 1888 there would be no scoop to print would there?

The journalism followed him absconding and that is unreliable. Some of that press he created himself

Did the police confirm that he was a Ripper suspect to the press at the time or that he was arrested as a suspect ? NO

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mike,

Not at all. It's reassuring to know that their source is so reliable.

"No later than November of last year Dr. Tumblety received a letter
from Drexel, Morgan & Co., which contained the subjoined passage,
quoted here to show the pleasant business relations existing between
them.

"In accordance with your order of the 20th inst., we have forwarded
you by this mail our sterling letter of credit for £263 1s. 6d., upon
Messrs. Drexel, Morgan & Co., of New York.

"We are, etc.,

"J. P. MORGAN & CO."

From: A sketch of the Life of Dr. Francis Tumblety, 1893.

Regards,

Simon

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor, why are you ignoring Jonathan's questions, my questions, and Batman's cogent remarks? Because you realize something stinks with your interpretation.

I'm not saying your interpretation doesn't fit the scant court evidence (and a court calendar isn't really the official document) and a cherry picking of British Law, I'm saying it's just plain wrong in this case, because of a logical evaulation of it.

Now, Stewart Evans' interpretation is slightly different than mine. He explained that the November 7th 'placed into custody' WAS the arrest on suspicion (requiring no warrent). Just as Tim Riordan stated, the only place we see the word 'warrant' is on the November 14 date, so this is where the gross indecency charge plus warrant began. He was brought in front of Hannay on the 16th, received bail, he paid the 300 pounds, and was set free.


Mike

How can I cherry pick British law of the day and its process, either its law or it isnt. You seem to want to change it to suit your agenda.

Please explain the warrant issue in relation to gross indecency you refer to and how it came to be on Nov 14 because I am bemused to say the least

I told you before bail was not as you state. if you read the court calender bail Bail was estreated following his absconding. No monies would have been handed over at the time bail was granted. If that had been the case there would no need for the sureties to attend they could have simply deposited the money to the court, and in their cases as you have already been told they had to attend in person.

I have told you before that Evans and Riordan have it wrong but you wont accept that is the case.

I think you have become so obsessed with trying to prove Tumblety being a ripper suspect that even you don't know what you are meant to be saying !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[mklhawley]

As normal you are wrong on may fronts.

1. The offence of gross indecency was only arrestable by means of a warrant.
Gross indecency was a misdemeanor

"A constable cannot legally arrest without warrant for a misdemeanor unless (a) the statute creating the misdemeanor expressly gives him this power, or (b) a breach of the peace is taking place or is about to take place, and the arrest is necessary to prevent it. In other cases the proper course is to apply to a magistrate for process.

2. Therefore all those who suggest otherwise are wrong and have been wrong
for many years,

3. It doesn't matter how many offences he was arrested for the fact is he was
arrested and they had sufficient evidence to formally charge him with 4
offences, which was enough to prove a course of conduct over the period
of time they had him under surveillance.

Now for all we know they had enough evidence to charge him with 20
similar offences.Now in practice if that had been the case, then they might
have taken the view which is the same today. That being the fact that
there would be no need to charge all those offences because the court would
not dish out 20 separate sentences. They would only sentence on those
charged. A sentence which would encompass all the offences.

What you state here is all wrong having been arrested on warrant the warrant dictates what happens, that being he had to be taken before the court as soon as practicable.The police Inspector had no say in the matter

If the court remands him in custody that is lawful

This is all wrong, and Stewart Evans is wrong if that what he said, once the warrant is executed it cannot be used again. They would not issue another warrant after his arrest what would be the point? There was no facility in place to bail a person from a police station to come back to that same police station at a later date

The Old Bailey would be the ones to set the trial date


What questions am I refusing to answer?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor, why are you ignoring Jonathan's questions, my questions, and Batman's cogent remarks? Because you realize something stinks with your interpretation.

I'm not saying your interpretation doesn't fit the scant court evidence (and a court calendar isn't really the official document) and a cherry picking of British Law, I'm saying it's just plain wrong in this case, because of a logical evaulation of it.

Now, Stewart Evans' interpretation is slightly different than mine. He explained that the November 7th 'placed into custody' WAS the arrest on suspicion (requiring no warrent). Just as Tim Riordan stated, the only place we see the word 'warrant' is on the November 14 date, so this is where the gross indecency charge plus warrant began. He was brought in front of Hannay on the 16th, received bail, he paid the 300 pounds, and was set free.

Mike

[mklhawley]

Hi Mike,

May I refer you to my Post #410.

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon,

I received this information from Roger Palmer:

“What may also be relevant is something first noticed by Stewart Evans. On the very day of the pretrial hearing at the Old Bailey, November 20th, Tumblety wired J.S Morgan & Co., his New York bankers, seeking in excess of £260 [at least £25,000 today]; this was a very large amount for 1888 and only slightly less than the £300 bail set back on November 16th…”

Are you thinking I may have misinterpreted Roger and Stewart?

Mike

[Batman]

How can you clear someone if they are not suspected in the first place ?


www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Let's say you're right. He was never suspected. However if he was in custody at the time of the MJK murder that would put him in the clear.

Yet not one newspaper was able to get this scoop?

Not one reporter learned this to overturn the masses of journalism to the opposite?

Is it investigators interests to have false stories flood the press?

How could this one variable, a crucial one, that he was in jail, get completely omitted?

Do things not make more sense to say he wasn't in jail at the time but was out on a bail that he later skipped?

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi John

[QUOTE=Dr. John Watson;326066]In searching through various published works, dissertations, discussions, and postings on the Ripper murders, I can find reference to no arrest report, booking record, or other official document giving details concerning the arrest of Tumblety on November 7. So far as I am aware, nothing is really known as to where he was arrested, why he was arrested, what charges if any were alleged against him, what statements if any were made by him, and how long he was held in custody. Thus, we are all debating something about which we know virtually nothing, except what we read in the paper. The fact that each side has well-researched perfectly logical arguments supporting his position, yet cannot prove his case, is evidence that definitive information concerning the arrest is lacking. The debate will continue, but sadly we may never know the answers for certain.

On the contrary it is recorded that he was arrested on Nov 7th and for what offences he was arrested for and subsequent charged with. The law is clearly defined with regards to arrests for these types of offences as I have already stated in previous posts.

After a person was arrested no interviews took place because they were not permitted to do so. So all the evidence in his case would have been gathered before his arrest. However if he had have made any statement at the time of his arrest that would have been recorded and presented as part of the evidence produced at his subsequent trial

It is recorded that he was committed for trial on Nov 14 but not granted bail with sureties until Nov 16th. So as to what went on in the interim periods one can draw proper inferences based on the the working of the judicial system back then


London police pulled in many supposed suspects in the Ripper case who were held for a period of time until their stories checked out or someone could vouch for them, and then were released. Were these individuals all arrested by warrant? Were they even charged with a crime? In some instances, it's possible the suspect was cleared of the Ripper murders but then charged in another case which, it could be argued, is what happened with Tumblety.
But no one really believes that police simply stumbled on Tumblety's criminal assaults on four men weeks earlier. Although case files and investigative records are missing or suppressed, obviously Tumblety was under surveillance for months before the Ripper murders, not by Metropolitan police but by CID, and that Department was interested in Tumblety, not because he was accosting young men but because of his suspected connection with Fenian activities. I believe they provided Metro police with the sexual assault evidence to get Tumblety behind bars where he might be more willing to cooperate and hopefully provide useful information to them. That is a theory, nothing more.

The CID are a part of The Metropolitan Police and there appears to be nothing to support his Fenian involvment


[B]A warrant was not required for a person to be arrested on suspicion of murder

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Dr. John Watson]

In searching through various published works, dissertations, discussions, and postings on the Ripper murders, I can find reference to no arrest report, booking record, or other official document giving details concerning the arrest of Tumblety on November 7. So far as I am aware, nothing is really known as to where he was arrested, why he was arrested, what charges if any were alleged against him, what statements if any were made by him, and how long he was held in custody. Thus, we are all debating something about which we know virtually nothing, except what we read in the paper. The fact that each side has well-researched perfectly logical arguments supporting his position, yet cannot prove his case, is evidence that definitive information concerning the arrest is lacking. The debate will continue, but sadly we may never know the answers for certain.

London police pulled in many supposed suspects in the Ripper case who were held for a period of time until their stories checked out or someone could vouch for them, and then were released. Were these individuals all arrested by warrant? Were they even charged with a crime? In some instances, it's possible the suspect was cleared of the Ripper murders but then charged in another case which, it could be argued, is what happened with Tumblety.
But no one really believes that police simply stumbled on Tumblety's criminal assaults on four men weeks earlier. Although case files and investigative records are missing or suppressed, obviously Tumblety was under surveillance for months before the Ripper murders, not by Metropolitan police but by CID, and that Department was interested in Tumblety, not because he was accosting young men but because of his suspected connection with Fenian activities. I believe they provided Metro police with the sexual assault evidence to get Tumblety behind bars where he might be more willing to cooperate and hopefully provide useful information to them. That is a theory, nothing more.

As to whether CID shared their complete Tumblety file with their brother officers in Whitechapel, my guess is they did not. In my years in law enforcement, I often shared information with Federal and State intelligence officers concerning certain individuals of mutual interest. While the cooperation was always friendly, as a rule they gave must less than they received. I suspect London's CID in 1888 operated on a similar need-to-know basis, so I doubt they would have shared their entire file with local coppers.

John

[Trevor Marriott]

One last time, Trevor.

Putting aside whether the American could have been available for the Kelly murder or not, why is it so vital to you that Dr Tumblety not just be a weak suspect, or a minor suspect, or a cleared suspect, but that he never have been a Scotland Yard suspect at all?

Tumbley has long been regraded as one of the "prime suspects" in the case. I have a problem with the term "prime" simply because there is no evidence to suggest any of the main suspects should be regarded as prime suspects.

In Tumbletys case setting aside the unreliable newspaper reports what else is there at the time to suggest he could have been at best anything more than a person of interest?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[The Good Michael]

"Suspectology"?!?

It reminds me of the cultists who believe that UFO's are mutilating cattle, and who call themselves "Mutologists".

Of course they wear their silly label proudly, whereas you use this word pejoratively-- the same way you use the word logic or logical.

The word you are looking for is not logic but bias. Some people create a biased, insular 'argument' that eliminates rather than incorporates sources that do not support--or even may oppose--their theory.

I call it suspectology because I have no other name for it. I don't think of it negatively (with regards to most people), but if you do, then I won't use it with you. And the word 'logical' is exactly what I mean it to be. If I can follow the argument and it's sensible (though not the best in my opinion), it's still logical. But after that, yes, bias comes in. Bias is the thing that one can never fight against because it is just like faith, it is ingrained because so much energy and emotion has gone into it. It's just another delusion...meaning that it blinds. Yes we all have biases, but if I have one here against certain suspects, I would hope it's based on my rationale rather than bias.

Mike

[Trevor Marriott]

Here's Tim Riordan's interpretation of the same British Law you are interpreting. ...and you're a supporter of Riordan:

Tumblety was arrested on November 7th on charges of gross indecency. Whether this was for one incident or four, there is no way of knowing. We can assume that he was taken to the Marlborough St. Police Station as this was the court which would later hear the case. He was arrested without a warrant. If there had been a prior warrant, it would have been listed in the Court Calendar.

Having arrested Tumblety without a warrant, the Police had three legal choices. The first was, within 24 hours of his arrest, to bring him before a court of summary jurisdiction. If that were not possible or desirable, it was up to the inspector of police whether to keep the person in custody or release the person on bail. This was not an arbitrary decision but had to be based on whether the alleged crime was “enormous,” and whether the person was a danger to others. If neither of those could be alleged, the person was entitled to bail. This could be as simple as the inspector determining the name of the person and their address. In most cases it was not necessary to put up any money. The person was told when to go to court for the hearing to determine if he should be charged. Based on the charges which are recorded, the police would have had no legal justification for holding Tumblety. Had he been held for over a week on these charges, his lawyer could have sued the police for false imprisonment.

As Stewart Evans contended, the procedure was to have a warrant issued and to have the person rearrested on the same charges prior to the hearing. The police magistrate’s court issued the warrant for Tumblety on November 14th. Tumblety was to return to the police station on that day and surrender his police bail. He would have then been held until the hearing on November 16th. At the hearing, the magistrate found that there was sufficient evidence to prosecute and set a trial date at the Queen’s Bench. At the same time, Tumblety was granted bail on the warrant by which he was arrested.


So, is there anyone who embraces your interpretation? The only mention of a warrant on the court calendar is November 14, and the November 7 date you claim there was a warrant is in the column 'date received into custody'. That's it. No mention of a warrant.

Why should it mention the warrant in particular in the court calender? That Calender was prepared by Old Bailey staff after they had received the committal papers from the committing magistrate.

So, why are you refusing to answer Jonathan's (and mine) question?

As normal you are wrong on may fronts.

1. The offence of gross indecency was only arrestable by means of a warrant.
Gross indecency was a misdemeanor

"A constable cannot legally arrest without warrant for a misdemeanor unless (a) the statute creating the misdemeanor expressly gives him this power, or (b) a breach of the peace is taking place or is about to take place, and the arrest is necessary to prevent it. In other cases the proper course is to apply to a magistrate for process.

2. Therefore all those who suggest otherwise are wrong and have been wrong
for many years,

3. It doesn't matter how many offences he was arrested for the fact is he was
arrested and they had sufficient evidence to formally charge him with 4
offences, which was enough to prove a course of conduct over the period
of time they had him under surveillance.

Now for all we know they had enough evidence to charge him with 20
similar offences.Now in practice if that had been the case, then they might
have taken the view which is the same today. That being the fact that
there would be no need to charge all those offences because the court would
not dish out 20 separate sentences. They would only sentence on those
charged. A sentence which would encompass all the offences.

What you state here is all wrong having been arrested on warrant the warrant dictates what happens, that being he had to be taken before the court as soon as practicable.The police Inspector had no say in the matter

If the court remands him in custody that is lawful

This is all wrong, and Stewart Evans is wrong if that what he said, once the warrant is executed it cannot be used again. They would not issue another warrant after his arrest what would be the point? There was no facility in place to bail a person from a police station to come back to that same police station at a later date

The Old Bailey would be the ones to set the trial date


What questions am I refusing to answer?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Jonathan H]

Yeah, that's me: the Deadbeat from Down Under.

I don't know how I sleep at nights.

"Suspectology"?!?

It reminds me of the cultists who believe that UFO's are mutilating cattle, and who call themselves "Mutologists".

Of course they wear their silly label proudly, whereas you use this word pejoratively-- the same way you use the word logic or logical.

The word you are looking for is not logic but bias. Some people create a biased, insular 'argument' that eliminates rather than incorporates sources that do not support--or even may oppose--their theory.

Everybody is biased, the effort must be made to recognize it and fight it (anybody who says they are free of bias is already lost). If the struggle is not even attempted then the theorist and their theory turns in on itself and becomes doctrinal. So rigid that when it can be shown to be illogical it does not matter, and certainly does not move the adherent to question or revisit what has become a faith-driven belief.

Yes, Mike, I know quite well about such posters.

The abusive label, "Suspectology", is also an expression of logically illogical group double-think.

[The Good Michael]

To TGM

You don't make a pretense of dealing with the issues, do you?

You just retreat into sweeping cliches.

Then why are you here?

Why not find a mystery that has characters who appeal to you? God know, there's plenty.

Believing that Tumblety was a major police suspect in 1888--if not the police suspect of 1888--is not the same as doing what you claim: e.g. artificially puffing up a suspect, or some "thing", to the exclusion of all other sources.

Incredibly, you use the word "logical" pejoratively!

What are you talking about? I say that people built up a logical case for suspects, and I mean that absolutely. The same logic, however, is used to dismiss things that don't agree with their logically concocted stories. That dismissal is also done logically, but it's unfair. It removes all balance and often removes things that are, logically speaking, more likely for the sake of their hypotheses. This is how suspectology always works, and especially with modern suspects. Of course what this really means is that whatever logic was used to build a case becomes logic by choice rather than by probability. It doesn't make it illogical. It does make it less logical to outsiders who have no dog in a fight and can see many sides with a better balance. Tell me where that doesn't make sense? Look at the Hutchinsonians, the Lechmerians, the Maybrickites and others and tell me that they aren't logical in their approaches (for the most part) and that your logic says something different. One of the clearest thinkers out here is Hunter and he gets labeled an anti-suspect guy. That's crazy. I have nowhere said that Tumblety and Druitt are not valid suspects. They most certainly are. I do suggest that the logic that gets from A to Z is very faith based at times. Disagree if you will, but to tell me to go find a character that appeals to me, that's actually quite a stupid suggestion and you should be better than that.

Mike

[Jonathan H]

To TGM

You don't make a pretense of dealing with the issues, do you?

You just retreat into sweeping cliches.

Then why are you here?

Why not find a mystery that has characters who appeal to you? God know, there's plenty.

Believing that Tumblety was a major police suspect in 1888--if not the police suspect of 1888--is not the same as doing what you claim: e.g. artificially puffing up a suspect, or some "thing", to the exclusion of all other sources.

Incredibly, you use the word "logical" pejoratively!

I personally do not even think Dr T was the fiend (because, arguably, the most reliable police source of that era did not think so).

Of course I could be wrong because, unlike Trevor, I wasn't there.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mike,

May I refer you to my Post #410.

Regards,

Simon