Was Tumblety in Jail during the Kelly Murder?

[mklhawley]

The calendar you refer to was the old bailey calendar was it not? and only entries would appear in that after a persons appearance there.

But of of course the facts surrounding Tumblety his arrest and the events thereafter suggest otherwise, when taken in the context of the judicial system at the time.

The fact that he appeared on Nov 14 and was then committed, but not bailed until Nov 16th is more then enough to suggest that he was in custody right up until the time he was bailed. The max 48 hours the court and police needed to check out sureties ties in with the 48 hours delay in bailing him as well.

But I am not going to labor these points again, as you say they have already been exhausted. The next time a newbie comes on and raises the same questions we should simply direct them to the relevant past threads on the topic.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Sorry, Trevor. The November and December court calendars show he received bail on remand (i.e., placed into custody) on November 14 and Tumblety paid the bail on November 16th. He was a free man on November 16, which is why the London correspondent's cable transmission was on November 17. An American was the red flag for a New York World foreign correspondent.

Both British Law and the facts fit it.

Mike

[Trevor Marriott]

1. Tumblety was known and in custody from time to time but free to kill MJK, after which time he skips bail. The Whitechapel Murder investigators didn't clear him because he was out and therefore got their men in America onto him but couldn't get anything to stick to him other than catching him in several homosexuals acts which America wouldn't deport over. They don't correct the press on this, ever.

2. Tumblety was known and in custody during the murder of MJK after which he skips bail. The Whitechapel Murder investigators forget to clear him because he was in jail at the time and still put their men in America onto him as a Ripper suspect also allowing the press to believe this.

3. Tumblety was in custody during the murder of MJK and the investigators just wanted America to think he was a Ripper suspect to get him back to England to charge and try him for homosexual acts.

1 at least gives the Whitechapel investigators some credit and brains.
2 makes the investigators out to be stooges.
3 probably wouldn't work as American lawyers would constantly point out how he may be tried for homosexual acts rather than being JtR.

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

There is no evidence that suggests that at the time of his arrest or while he was in custody he was a suspect for the murders. All the other wild speculation came much later in the press, which as you know cannot always be guaranteed to tell the truth and they have a habit of embellishing stories to suit their own means, i,e to sell newspapers

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes - there might have been a different outcome in a different case.

But the Hamilton De Tatham case does show there was no legal impossibility in being bailed before committal on such a charge, even when it wasn't recorded in the calendar.

The calendar you refer to was the old bailey calendar was it not? and only entries would appear in that after a persons appearance there.

But of of course the facts surrounding Tumblety his arrest and the events thereafter suggest otherwise, when taken in the context of the judicial system at the time.

The fact that he appeared on Nov 14 and was then committed, but not bailed until Nov 16th is more then enough to suggest that he was in custody right up until the time he was bailed. The max 48 hours the court and police needed to check out sureties ties in with the 48 hours delay in bailing him as well.

But I am not going to labor these points again, as you say they have already been exhausted. The next time a newbie comes on and raises the same questions we should simply direct them to the relevant past threads on the topic.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Chris]

I am sorry but I disagree with you, and no two cases are the same so it is perhaps wrong to compare the outcome of one case against another simply because we don't know the full facts of cases we are comparing it with.

Yes - there might have been a different outcome in a different case.

But the Hamilton De Tatham case does show there was no legal impossibility in being bailed before committal on such a charge, even when it wasn't recorded in the calendar.

[Trevor Marriott]

I'm puzzled. This whole question was discussed at length more than two years ago, and in what you said was your final post on this topic then, you said:
"That being said the burning question still is was Tumbetly free between Nov 7-14th? Now I fully accept that this cannot be proved definitivley. However the balance of probability based on the facts and the legal proceedure of the day firmly suggests to me that he was in custody."

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=233219&postcount=104

The problem is that we know from other cases that bail could be given for these offences before committal, that the amount of bail could be increased at committal (which of course could cause a delay in finding sureties) and that the bail arrangements were not always recorded in the calendar. One such example, the case of Hamilton de Tatham, is described by Joe Chetcuti in the current Ripperologist (and was discussed on this thread in 2012).

No doubt everyone will continue to have their own opinions about the likelihood of Tumblety having been bailed, but in view of the evidence it can't be argued that it was a legal impossibility.

I am sorry but I disagree with you, and no two cases are the same so it is perhaps wrong to compare the outcome of one case against another simply because we don't know the full facts of cases we are comparing it with.

In this case the arrest and the events and date that followed clearly in my opinion suggest that he was remanded in custody on Nov 7th

I think when you are looking at bail, yes perhaps others charged with indictable offences did get bail at the earliest opportunity but most of those I would suggest were persons who had fixed addresses and were bona fide UK residents and the courts did not look for additional sureties. This was not the case with Tumblety what is more that there is no court record to show Tumblety was bailed from the police court on Nov 7th or 8th, or newspaper reports which one might have expected.

The case you refer to shows that following his arrest De Tatham was detained overnight and put before the court the following morning. Which is what I suggest happened to Tumblety in the first instance. De La Tatham was granted bail in his own recognizance the following day prior to committal. It shuld also be noted that the case you refer to took place 3 years later in 1891.

Yes you are right this was discussed at length previous but like most things in ripperology they get re hashed again and what happens off we all go again on the merry go round.

But we cannot get away from how the judicial system was in 1888 and look at everything connected to Tumbelty from his arrest to his absconding and quite rightly draw a proper inference from that.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[jmenges]

It's family lore that William Melville (in an account supposedly given by his son), while stationed in Le Harve, was alerted by the Special Branch of Tumblety's flight and ordered to prevent Tumblety from escaping from that port, but he failed in this regard. If there is any factual basis for this story, I'm not sure Melville himself would have been put on the alert if it was only to prevent Tumblety from absconding on the Gross Indecency charges.

JM

[mklhawley]

So Trevor, just as Jonathan eluded to, why do you have such a hang up about Tumblety being a suspect, but when it comes to Sir George Arthur, you accept it beyond question?

...but answer Chris' question first.

[Chris]

The legal niceties as I have set out point to him being in custody. Why do you argue against the law ? There is no argument to be had accept it and move on.

I'm puzzled. This whole question was discussed at length more than two years ago, and in what you said was your final post on this topic then, you said:
"That being said the burning question still is was Tumbetly free between Nov 7-14th? Now I fully accept that this cannot be proved definitivley. However the balance of probability based on the facts and the legal proceedure of the day firmly suggests to me that he was in custody."

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=233219&postcount=104

The problem is that we know from other cases that bail could be given for these offences before committal, that the amount of bail could be increased at committal (which of course could cause a delay in finding sureties) and that the bail arrangements were not always recorded in the calendar. One such example, the case of Hamilton de Tatham, is described by Joe Chetcuti in the current Ripperologist (and was discussed on this thread in 2012).

No doubt everyone will continue to have their own opinions about the likelihood of Tumblety having been bailed, but in view of the evidence it can't be argued that it was a legal impossibility.

[mklhawley]

1. Tumblety was known and in custody from time to time but free to kill MJK, after which time he skips bail. The Whitechapel Murder investigators didn't clear him because he was out and therefore got their men in America onto him but couldn't get anything to stick to him other than catching him in several homosexuals acts which America wouldn't deport over. They don't correct the press on this, ever.

2. Tumblety was known and in custody during the murder of MJK after which he skips bail. The Whitechapel Murder investigators forget to clear him because he was in jail at the time and still put their men in America onto him as a Ripper suspect also allowing the press to believe this.

3. Tumblety was in custody during the murder of MJK and the investigators just wanted America to think he was a Ripper suspect to get him back to England to charge and try him for homosexual acts.

1 at least gives the Whitechapel investigators some credit and brains.
2 makes the investigators out to be stooges.
3 probably wouldn't work as American lawyers would constantly point out how he may be tried for homosexual acts rather than being JtR.

That's about it, Batman. Trevor doesn't give the London correspondent, Tracy Greaves and his subordinates credit enough to have discovered the news. As I stated earlier, the same New York World cable had as it's main story the arrest of Sir George Arthur on suspicion because he was wearing an American Slouch Hat, was alone, and was giving harlots a hard time. Trevor and company have accepted this, even though the British press was COMPLETELY silent on the issue.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Batman]

3 Choices

1. Tumblety was known and in custody from time to time but free to kill MJK, after which time he skips bail. The Whitechapel Murder investigators didn't clear him because he was out and therefore got their men in America onto him but couldn't get anything to stick to him other than catching him in several homosexuals acts which America wouldn't deport over. They don't correct the press on this, ever.

2. Tumblety was known and in custody during the murder of MJK after which he skips bail. The Whitechapel Murder investigators forget to clear him because he was in jail at the time and still put their men in America onto him as a Ripper suspect also allowing the press to believe this.

3. Tumblety was in custody during the murder of MJK and the investigators just wanted America to think he was a Ripper suspect to get him back to England to charge and try him for homosexual acts.

1 at least gives the Whitechapel investigators some credit and brains.
2 makes the investigators out to be stooges.
3 probably wouldn't work as American lawyers would constantly point out how he may be tried for homosexual acts rather than being JtR.

[Trevor Marriott]

I'll put it to bed, Trevor, by repeating what I once wrote:

Trevor’s claim is that Tumblety was arrested WITH a warrant on November 7th (gross indecency case completed), which required the police by British nineteenth century law to present Tumblety and the gross indecency case to the police court Magistrate, Hannay, on or about that same day. Since there is no evidence that he received ‘bail at police court’, then he was placed on remand and in custody up to his committal to trial at Central Criminal Court one week later on November 14th in front of Hannay, thus, he was in jail during the Kelly murder. Since he was already in custody, there was only one bail assigned, which he eventually paid on November 16th. In view of this, he could not have been offered bail twice and ‘released on his recognizances’ twice (once before committal to trial and once after). It seems to fit British Law, but then Stewart Evans presented a case that must have fit British Law, since it happened. Evans presented the Ginger case –the next case after Tumblety’s- that Ginger did indeed get released on his recognizances twice; once before committal and once after. Joe Chetcuti presented even a second case demonstrating this. Now, that does not mean Tumblety was released on his recognizances twice, so Trevor’s argument is still viable…but as we now know, it does not mean he wasn’t, either.

The problem with Trevor’s proposal is that, even though it seems to conform to British Law, it does not fit all of the evidence. I am going to propose an alternative series of events that fits both British Law AND additional evidence. Sir Robert Anderson continuing the Tumblety case after the Kelly murder aside, the evidence I would like to focus on is the London World News cable source, which was reported in the San Francisco Chronicle on November 18, 1888:

San Francisco Chronicle, 18 November 1888,
A Heavy Swell Arrested in Whitechapel.
A Score of Prisoners, but No Clew.
[THE NEW YORK WORLD CABLE SERVICE; COPYRIGHTED, 1888 - SPECIAL TO THE CHRONICLE]
LONDON, November 17.
…Another arrest was a man who gave the name of Dr. Kumblety of New York. The police could not hold him on suspicion of the Whitechapel crimes, but he will be committed for trial at the Central Criminal Court under the special law passed soon after the Modern Babylon exposures. The police say this is the man's right name, as proved by letters in his possession; that he is from New York, and that he has been in the habit of crossing the ocean twice a year for several years.
A score of other men have been arrested by the police this week on suspicion of being the murderer, but the right man still roams at large…

Why should the cable source be taken more seriously that a mere US newspaper report? The cable source claimed its source was the police, and to confirm this being true, the points of fact given were correct and could only have come from police. “The police say this is the man’s right name as proved by letters in his possession.” All who now know Tumblety’s habits agree he did just this. How would a reporter, who had no idea Tumblety was a murder suspect at all, pull that correct fact out of thin air? There was no time for the reporter to do a background investigation before sending the cable. Just as Trevor stated, the case was in private session, so neither British nor US papers would have known, but once he posted bail on November 16th, the cable source (most likely stationed at Marlborough Street Station, since a New York World correspondent was stationed there, the timing is perfect, and the details of the case are correct) spoke with police about Tumblety and then sent the cable off by November 17th.

Also as I stated earlier, why would the London cable source just make it up about him being arrested on suspicion of the Whitechapel crimes, especially when Littlechild confirmed this and Tumblety admitted it?

Revealing inferences in the cable:

1. Tumblety was FIRST arrested for suspicion in the Whitechapel murder and then RE-ARRESTED for the gross indecency case. The cable states that there was not enough evidence to pursue the Whitechapel murder case, which clearly suggests he was ARRESTED WITHOUT A WARRANT, being a suspicious character on the streets of Whitechapel. Notice the cable also stated ‘A score of other men have been arrested…on suspicion…’ The use of ‘other’ connects this sentence with Tumblety. Even though Simon claims Tumblety stole the American slouch hat story from the Sir George Arthur incident, it is a fact that Scotland Yard was interested in lone males wearing American slouch hats throughout the entire previous month of October. Tumblety was picked up for the same reason as Arthur; a lone suspicious male on the streets of Whitechapel wearing clothing connected to a previous theory of who the killer might be. He was arrested without a warrant just like ‘a score of other men’.

2. Since Scotland Yard shifted from a case that they could not yet win, the Whitechapel investigation, to a case that they were more confident in winning, the gross indecency case, we can infer that an investigation (and file) on Tumblety must have already started specific to gross indecency. But why did they not yet bring Tumblety immediately up to the Magistrate for this? Because it was incomplete and they want a solid case.

So taking into account nineteenth century British Law, court and police procedures, and the cable source, the following series of events are presented. Keep in mind; this is not pure conjecture, because it fits the evidence:

On the November 2 weekend, Tumblety was hanging out on the West End in Marborough Street Court jurisdiction, as evidenced by young Doughty’s gross indecency claim of November 2 and that the gross indecency case was eventually in front of the Marlborough Street Court Magistrate. On the evening of the 6th, though, Tumblety was hanging out on the East End Whitechapel streets. Tumblety himself admits that he was hanging out in the Whitechapel Streets and was identified by his hat. Because of him being a lone male on the Whitechapel Streets, wearing an American slouch hat, and probably behaving erratically, he was arrested ‘on suspicion of the Whitechapel murders’ and taken into custody. It was a time that scores of men were taken into custody.

Once they realized who they had –a man they were already investigating in a gross indecency case (or even a Special Branch case) – AND because they had some kind of evidence that made Tumblety a more significant suspect than the scores of ones they merely released the next day, they made the decision to discharge and re-arrest him for gross indecency in order to keep him in their control as long as possible. Again, they could not bring Tumblety to trial for the murders, since no one saw the murders. No one was ever brought to trial for the murders.

Trevor argues about Tumblety either being arrested with or without a warrant but only for the gross indecency case. Tumblety was at the police station when they decided what action to take specific to the gross indecency case. Since he was already in custody and the gross indecency case was not fully complete, they did not want to bring it up to Hannay and commit to trial on November 7th, they needed time to solidify the case. They opted for police bail and had to release him within 24 hours, because he was not going to see the Magistrate. Police bail does not require a Magistrate’s prior approval:


[ATTACH]16540[/ATTACH]

On the court calendar in the ‘when received into custody’ column it states November 7th, because that’s when the detectives officially informed Tumblety of the charges of gross indecency, but they had to release him. At this time, they weren’t required to show Tumblety all of the evidence against him, so Tumblety had no fear, especially when Tumblety could afford the best solicitors and barristers. Thus, Tumblety went in front of Hannay on November 14th from police bail, but then was placed on remand by Hannay until trial.

Sincerely,

Mike

There you go again muddying the waters and using newspaper articles and clearly making this up as you go along.

On a previous matter you raised whereby you said if Tumblely was innocent of the murders then why didnt he come out and say so. The reason being is that he had no need to come out and say so because he was never arrested or suspected of being the killer at the time he was arrested or immediately afterwards.

On another note with regards to police bail there was no procedure in place in 1888 for police bail, that is with regards to bailing someone out and getting them to come back at a date and time in the future.

The 1888 police bail was in regards to when a person was charged at a police station with an offence they were bailed from the police station direct to a court

The police couldn't release Tumblety the arrest had to be by warrant and the warrant stated that the person arrested has to be taken before a court.

[mklhawley]

I'll put it to bed, Trevor, by repeating what I once wrote:

Trevor’s claim is that Tumblety was arrested WITH a warrant on November 7th (gross indecency case completed), which required the police by British nineteenth century law to present Tumblety and the gross indecency case to the police court Magistrate, Hannay, on or about that same day. Since there is no evidence that he received ‘bail at police court’, then he was placed on remand and in custody up to his committal to trial at Central Criminal Court one week later on November 14th in front of Hannay, thus, he was in jail during the Kelly murder. Since he was already in custody, there was only one bail assigned, which he eventually paid on November 16th. In view of this, he could not have been offered bail twice and ‘released on his recognizances’ twice (once before committal to trial and once after). It seems to fit British Law, but then Stewart Evans presented a case that must have fit British Law, since it happened. Evans presented the Ginger case –the next case after Tumblety’s- that Ginger did indeed get released on his recognizances twice; once before committal and once after. Joe Chetcuti presented even a second case demonstrating this. Now, that does not mean Tumblety was released on his recognizances twice, so Trevor’s argument is still viable…but as we now know, it does not mean he wasn’t, either.

The problem with Trevor’s proposal is that, even though it seems to conform to British Law, it does not fit all of the evidence. I am going to propose an alternative series of events that fits both British Law AND additional evidence. Sir Robert Anderson continuing the Tumblety case after the Kelly murder aside, the evidence I would like to focus on is the London World News cable source, which was reported in the San Francisco Chronicle on November 18, 1888:

San Francisco Chronicle, 18 November 1888,
A Heavy Swell Arrested in Whitechapel.
A Score of Prisoners, but No Clew.
[THE NEW YORK WORLD CABLE SERVICE; COPYRIGHTED, 1888 - SPECIAL TO THE CHRONICLE]
LONDON, November 17.
…Another arrest was a man who gave the name of Dr. Kumblety of New York. The police could not hold him on suspicion of the Whitechapel crimes, but he will be committed for trial at the Central Criminal Court under the special law passed soon after the Modern Babylon exposures. The police say this is the man's right name, as proved by letters in his possession; that he is from New York, and that he has been in the habit of crossing the ocean twice a year for several years.
A score of other men have been arrested by the police this week on suspicion of being the murderer, but the right man still roams at large…

Why should the cable source be taken more seriously that a mere US newspaper report? The cable source claimed its source was the police, and to confirm this being true, the points of fact given were correct and could only have come from police. “The police say this is the man’s right name as proved by letters in his possession.” All who now know Tumblety’s habits agree he did just this. How would a reporter, who had no idea Tumblety was a murder suspect at all, pull that correct fact out of thin air? There was no time for the reporter to do a background investigation before sending the cable. Just as Trevor stated, the case was in private session, so neither British nor US papers would have known, but once he posted bail on November 16th, the cable source (most likely stationed at Marlborough Street Station, since a New York World correspondent was stationed there, the timing is perfect, and the details of the case are correct) spoke with police about Tumblety and then sent the cable off by November 17th.

Also as I stated earlier, why would the London cable source just make it up about him being arrested on suspicion of the Whitechapel crimes, especially when Littlechild confirmed this and Tumblety admitted it?

Revealing inferences in the cable:

1. Tumblety was FIRST arrested for suspicion in the Whitechapel murder and then RE-ARRESTED for the gross indecency case. The cable states that there was not enough evidence to pursue the Whitechapel murder case, which clearly suggests he was ARRESTED WITHOUT A WARRANT, being a suspicious character on the streets of Whitechapel. Notice the cable also stated ‘A score of other men have been arrested…on suspicion…’ The use of ‘other’ connects this sentence with Tumblety. Even though Simon claims Tumblety stole the American slouch hat story from the Sir George Arthur incident, it is a fact that Scotland Yard was interested in lone males wearing American slouch hats throughout the entire previous month of October. Tumblety was picked up for the same reason as Arthur; a lone suspicious male on the streets of Whitechapel wearing clothing connected to a previous theory of who the killer might be. He was arrested without a warrant just like ‘a score of other men’.

2. Since Scotland Yard shifted from a case that they could not yet win, the Whitechapel investigation, to a case that they were more confident in winning, the gross indecency case, we can infer that an investigation (and file) on Tumblety must have already started specific to gross indecency. But why did they not yet bring Tumblety immediately up to the Magistrate for this? Because it was incomplete and they want a solid case.

So taking into account nineteenth century British Law, court and police procedures, and the cable source, the following series of events are presented. Keep in mind; this is not pure conjecture, because it fits the evidence:

On the November 2 weekend, Tumblety was hanging out on the West End in Marborough Street Court jurisdiction, as evidenced by young Doughty’s gross indecency claim of November 2 and that the gross indecency case was eventually in front of the Marlborough Street Court Magistrate. On the evening of the 6th, though, Tumblety was hanging out on the East End Whitechapel streets. Tumblety himself admits that he was hanging out in the Whitechapel Streets and was identified by his hat. Because of him being a lone male on the Whitechapel Streets, wearing an American slouch hat, and probably behaving erratically, he was arrested ‘on suspicion of the Whitechapel murders’ and taken into custody. It was a time that scores of men were taken into custody.

Once they realized who they had –a man they were already investigating in a gross indecency case (or even a Special Branch case) – AND because they had some kind of evidence that made Tumblety a more significant suspect than the scores of ones they merely released the next day, they made the decision to discharge and re-arrest him for gross indecency in order to keep him in their control as long as possible. Again, they could not bring Tumblety to trial for the murders, since no one saw the murders. No one was ever brought to trial for the murders.

Trevor argues about Tumblety either being arrested with or without a warrant but only for the gross indecency case. Tumblety was at the police station when they decided what action to take specific to the gross indecency case. Since he was already in custody and the gross indecency case was not fully complete, they did not want to bring it up to Hannay and commit to trial on November 7th, they needed time to solidify the case. They opted for police bail and had to release him within 24 hours, because he was not going to see the Magistrate. Police bail does not require a Magistrate’s prior approval:




On the court calendar in the ‘when received into custody’ column it states November 7th, because that’s when the detectives officially informed Tumblety of the charges of gross indecency, but they had to release him. At this time, they weren’t required to show Tumblety all of the evidence against him, so Tumblety had no fear, especially when Tumblety could afford the best solicitors and barristers. Thus, Tumblety went in front of Hannay on November 14th from police bail, but then was placed on remand by Hannay until trial.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Jonathan H]

Well, well, didn't you suddenly calm down, Trevor.

You propose a theory based on limited evidence which is fine, even if I and others think it it is implausible, and then you claim you know--for an absolute fact--that you are right.

That could only be true if you were there, mate.

So what is it? Why this manic need for Tumblety to be not a Ripper suspect?

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes, and he had a lot of nerve and experience as a crackerjack confidence man.

It is a logical absurdity that Tumblety could have been in a cell whilst Kelly was murdered, because he himself would have said so, loud and clear, and Robert Anderson would not have tried to get a sampling of his handwriting from NYC, and Inspector Andrews would not have been bothering with a background check about this suspect in Canada, and Jack Littlechild would not have omitted to inform Sims that Dr. T was cleared at the time.

What you call muddying the waters, Trevor, is just basic historical research.

But I do get from your 100% certainty that this is vital to you isn't it?

Dr. Tumblety had to be in a cell during the Kelly murder.

Why is that, Trevor?

Why is it such a life and death matter?

What is it exactly that you lose if Tumblety was a Ripper suspect, as he obviously was?

The legal niceties as I have set out point to him being in custody. Why do you argue against the law ? There is no argument to be had accept it and move on.

The handwriting request has been explained to you in a previous post they already had his handwriting before he absconded

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Jonathan H]

Yes, and he had a lot of nerve and experience as a crackerjack confidence man.

It is a logical absurdity that Tumblety could have been in a cell whilst Kelly was murdered, because he himself would have said so, loud and clear, and Robert Anderson would not have tried to get a sampling of his handwriting from NYC, and Inspector Andrews would not have been bothering with a background check about this suspect in Canada, and Jack Littlechild would not have omitted to inform Sims that Dr. T was cleared at the time.

What you call muddying the waters, Trevor, is just basic historical research.

But I do get from your 100% certainty that this is vital to you isn't it?

Dr. Tumblety had to be in a cell during the Kelly murder.

Why is that, Trevor?

Why is it such a life and death matter?

What is it exactly that you lose if Tumblety was a Ripper suspect, as he obviously was?