Was Tumblety in Jail during the Kelly Murder?

[The Good Michael]

T

George R. Sims would never have written that the fiend was a young barrister, pulled from the Thames on the last day of 1888, because it would have ruined the surviving Druitts among the respectable circles in which they moved.

For example, in his 1917 memoir Sims flatly denied having helped the cops point to a dead man, and to have convicted him of being the Ripper. Then what on earth had he been doing since 1899? Pointing away from the real figure towards a fictional construct who could do no harm to the late barrister, or to his good family--and do quite a bit of good for the dented rep of the Yard.

So instead of asking about Druitt who he knew was a barrister, he disguises what he wants completely asking about a doctor instead thinking that Littlechild will know exactly who he's talking about? Ok...that's odd. Could you show me the letter to Littlechild and the information from Anderson to Sims. I'd like to see exactly what Anderson told him. If it's just speculation, obviously you can't point to that.

Mike

[The Good Michael]

It also conforms to Littlechild's comments considering Tumblety a very likely suspect (Sorry the Good Michael, your ax to grind is obvious).

I have no idea what that means. What is my ax? Or was that a mistake?

Mike

[Jonathan H]

Thanks Mike!

To THG

That's a loaded question, but so be it. I'll give it a go.

Here is Sims as Dagonet in his "Mustard and Cress" column of "The Referee" of April 17th, 1910, bucketing Anderson and his "Fairy Tales":

'The final official record, which is in the archives of the Home Office, leaves the matter in doubt between the Polish Jew, who was afterwards put in a lunatic asylum, a Russian doctor of vile character, and an English homicidal maniac, one Dr.-----, who had been in a lunatic asylum.'

I think that Sims wrote in response to Littlechild and perhaps identified his Ripper in the same way, just a little more as 'Dr. D--' and quoted Major Griffiths (as he had done in 1903, in his comparable spat with Abberline) and what the latter had written in 1898 about the Drowned Doctor. Perhaps, Littlechild had seen the 1910 column, above, at some later point and was perplexed and curious, and asked about it.

Not having a copy of the Major's book caused the ex-chief to want to know whom Sims specifically meant, and he wrote again, the letter Sims kept. But this time Littlechild, himself, supplied the answer, e.g. Dr D is a garbled version of Dr T, who was also "believed" to have killed himself. He sets it up so that Sims need only reply if he disagrees.

Sims had arguably dealt with Tumblety, though fictionalized, in "Lloyds Weekly", Sept 22nd 1907, in which the middle-aged English doctor who killed himself is the lading solution followed not by the Polish madman but by a Yank--the same merging of Druitt and Tumblety we see in the Littlechild Letter (the question is why?):

'The other theory in support of which I have some curious information, puts the crime down to a young American medical student who was in London during the whole time of the murders, and who, according to statements of certain highly-respectable people who knew him, made on two occasions an endeavour to obtain a certain internal organ, which for his purpose had to be removed from, as he put it, '"the almost living body."

... But against this theory put forward by those who uphold it with remarkable details and some startling evidence in support of their contention, there is this one great fact. The American was alive and well and leading the life of an ordinary citizen long after the Ripper murders came to an end.'

Most historical solutions are based on interpretation and speculation. We would not have them otherwise. So long as you concede that they are provisional solutions. That is why so many historians disagree about the same topics. It is inevitable. But it does not mean they all cancel each other out, among other juvenile cliches which substitute for critical analysis here by some.

By the way, I am not arguing that Anderson was in contact with Sims at all, and certainly not after 1910.

[Jonathan H]

Sorry ... TGM

On the other hand, I think the reason Littlechild thought Griffiths got his info from Anderson was because he perhaps did have a copy of the Major's book, and after consulting it he was left even more baffled.

Littlechild thought this revelation about three promising suspects (the most promising being a doctor who killed himself) must come from Anderson because of a critical bit of deceit that Griffiths propagated (perhaps unknowingly) on behalf of an anonymous Macnaghten: that the mad English surgeon was supposedly being hunted by police in 1888 (and Mac did not start until the middle of 1889).

Again, understandably, this element of Griffiths, that the middle-aged doctor was a suspect in 1888 and was the most promising before he killed himself, matched only Dr. Tumblety (and after all, T does rhyme with D) about whom it was also believed had taken his own life (though in France).

Who told him that lie, a lie, furthermore, that had the lovely effect of completely airbrushing out of existence Inspector Andrews' [perhaps] disappointing trip to Canada to do a background check on the American suspect--and also of course the disappointment that the swine died of natural causes in 1903?

[Trevor Marriott]

To Trevor

What you list as all facts are a mixture of facts and interpretation of limited data, arguably the wrong interpretation when compared to other sources.

Do you understand the difference?

.

Lets not beat about the bush here. You show me where those facts I have listed are wrong, back your answers up with primary evidence other than from newspapers.

If the facts are right there can be no wrong interpretation can there ?

And I would suggest those other sources you rely on have now been proved to be wrong.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[mklhawley]

Lets not beat about the bush here. You show me where those facts I have listed are wrong, back your answers up with primary evidence other than from newspapers.

This is why so many people reject your logic, Trevor. Rejecting these primary sources is merely an act of denial.

Just as I demonstrated, these sources are quite reliable. The very fist time we hear Tumblety was arrested on suspicion FIRST and then was held by then arresting him on Gross Indecency and Indecent Assault was from the New York World's London correspondent, the same correspondent that reported on Sir George Arthur being arrested for wearing a slouch hat (You curiously accept this, though.). This story was confirmed by competing daily newspapers from North American AND England, as evidenced by them accepting it and promoting it. It's further corroborated by Littlechild AND Assistant Commissioner Anderson.

Demonstrate to me why these should not be used as evidence, but you might want to read my Yellow Journalism article and Tumblety Over the Wire article before you put your foot in your mouth even further.

[Trevor Marriott]

This is why so many people reject your logic, Trevor. Rejecting these primary sources is merely an act of denial.

Just as I demonstrated, these sources are quite reliable. The very fist time we hear Tumblety was arrested on suspicion FIRST and then was held by then arresting him on Gross Indecency and Indecent Assault was from the New York World's London correspondent, the same correspondent that reported on Sir George Arthur being arrested for wearing a slouch hat (You curiously accept this, though.). This story was confirmed by competing daily newspapers from North American AND England, as evidenced by them accepting it and promoting it. It's further corroborated by Littlechild AND Assistant Commissioner Anderson.

Demonstrate to me why these should not be used as evidence, but you might want to read my Yellow Journalism article and Tumblety Over the Wire article before you put your foot in your mouth even further.

The only people who seem to reject my logic in this matter appear to be you and JH and thats because you both have more than a vested interest in Tumblety.

I keep asking question but both you and JH seem to not want to answer them and continue to quote from newspapers which are unsafe.

Tumblety was arrested for gross indecency that's a fact. That could only have been on a warrant, which the police would have had to have in advance of any arrest. So they had planned to arrest him they had their indecency case nailed down.

If they wanted him for the murders they could have executed the arrest warrant and then spoken to him about the murders. Not the other way round. I don't know where this has come from but its not correct it doesn't make sense.

There is no evidence that when he was arrested on Nov 7th he was a ripper suspect and no evidence to show he was ever interviewed about the murders.

As to Tumbley getting bail I did read one article in which he states himself he was on remand and did cite the murders as the reason but of course would he have wanted the real reason for his arrest and detention banded about?

This thread is about whether or not he was in jail on Nov 8th when Kelly was murdered the answer is yes he was, so therefore he could not have killed her and consider adding Nicholls to the same list of acquittals.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Batman]

Littlechild Letter is from 1913. He says Tumblety skipped bail. So saying he was in jail during the murders has this to contend with.

A cable sent from Europe on 7th December reported that someone had set sail to New York from Havre who had a hatred of women and whose name is known.

Tumblety had fled England for France on 20 November under the false name of Frank Townsend. He returned to the United States on 24 November.

The chances of these being two different people is slim. So what happened on 7th December with the Cable? They got wind of his arrest from the 7th November and of him subsequently going on the lamb.

More importantly the investigators were obviously watching him enough to catch him in an act they could arrest him for, but not hold him for long as he could post the bail cost and leave. So he paid Ł300 to get out of dodge and decided to try and fight extradition.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mike,

At the time of sending his cable to Campbell [22nd/23rd November, reports vary] did Anderson know Tumblety had flown the coop?

Regards,

Simon

[Trevor Marriott]

Littlechild Letter is from 1913. He says Tumblety skipped bail. So saying he was in jail during the murders has this to contend with.

A cable sent from Europe on 7th December reported that someone had set sail to New York from Havre who had a hatred of women and whose name is known.

Tumblety had fled England for France on 20 November under the false name of Frank Townsend. He returned to the United States on 24 November.

The chances of these being two different people is slim. So what happened on 7th December with the Cable? They got wind of his arrest from the 7th November and of him subsequently going on the lamb.

More importantly the investigators were obviously watching him enough to catch him in an act they could arrest him for, but not hold him for long as he could post the bail cost and leave. So he paid Ł300 to get out of dodge and decided to try and fight extradition.

You have to remember there are reasons why people are not always granted bail even if they are able to come up with sureties.

1. Serious nature of offence, if convicted likely to receive a lengthy custodial
sentence

2. Likely to abscond

3. Likely to interfere with witnesses/victims

4. Likely to commit further offences

5. Release likely to impede the ongoing investigation

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[mklhawley]

The only people who seem to reject my logic in this matter appear to be you and JH and thats because you both have more than a vested interest in Tumblety.

Man, that's an understatement. I seem to recall you proudly considering yoursef a blacksheep, for this very reason.

I keep asking question but both you and JH seem to not want to answer them and continue to quote from newspapers which are unsafe.

I keep on asking you to support this assertion, but you can't.

Tumblety was arrested for gross indecency that's a fact. That could only have been on a warrant, which the police would have had to have in advance of any arrest. So they had planned to arrest him they had their indecency case nailed down.

They certainly did plan on arresting him, because they couldn't hold him on suspicion for the Ripper murders, just as the primary souces state. Sorry Trevor.

If they wanted him for the murders they could have executed the arrest warrant and then spoken to him about the murders. Not the other way round. I don't know where this has come from but its not correct it doesn't make sense.

Listen to the primary sources and it makes perfect sense. They did not need an arrest warrrent to arrest him on suspicion, just like they arrested all of the people constables arrested from the streets. All they needed for an arrest was suspicious behavior. Nineteenth century British law state that once arrested on suspicion, they had to identify two things: Their identity and their residence; exactly what the primary sources said they did with Tumblety. They then had 24 hours to either charge them of put them up in front of the police magistrate. Sorry Trevor.

There is no evidence that when he was arrested on Nov 7th he was a ripper suspect and no evidence to show he was ever interviewed about the murders.

There certainly was; the primary sources corroborated by Littlechild, Anderson, British papers, and Logan. Sorry Trevor.

As to Tumbley getting bail I did read one article in which he states himself he was on remand and did cite the murders as the reason but of course would he have wanted the real reason for his arrest and detention banded about?

Listening to Tumblety now are we? Is that proof?

This thread is about whether or not he was in jail on Nov 8th when Kelly was murdered the answer is yes he was, so therefore he could not have killed her and consider adding Nicholls to the same list of acquittals.

Just as Batman is attempting to explain to you. He couldn't have been incarcerated with all of the attention he received later. It would have been an embarassment to Scotland Yard if this was the ironclad alibi. Sorry Trevor.


So Trevor, I've answered your questions and shown you to be incorrect. Why not answer my questions now?

Mike

[Trevor Marriott]

Man, that's an understatement. I seem to recall you proudly considering yoursef a blacksheep, for this very reason.

I keep on asking you to support this assertion, but you can't.

They certainly did plan on arresting him, because they couldn't hold him on suspicion for the Ripper murders, just as the primary souces state. Sorry Trevor.

Listen to the primary sources and it makes perfect sense. They did not need an arrest warrrent to arrest him on suspicion, just like they arrested all of the people constables arrested from the streets. All they needed for an arrest was suspicious behavior. Nineteenth century British law state that once arrested on suspicion, they had to identify two things: Their identity and their residence; exactly what the primary sources said they did with Tumblety. They then had 24 hours to either charge them of put them up in front of the police magistrate. Sorry Trevor.

There certainly was; the primary sources corroborated by Littlechild, Anderson, British papers, and Logan. Sorry Trevor.

Listening to Tumblety now are we? Is that proof?

Just as Batman is attempting to explain to you. He couldn't have been incarcerated with all of the attention he received later. It would have been an embarassment to Scotland Yard if this was the ironclad alibi. Sorry Trevor.

So Trevor, I've answered your questions and shown you to be incorrect. Why not answer my questions now?

Mike

You really don't have a clue do you are you on another planet?

My only interest in Tumblety as far as this thread is concerned it to prove or disprove him being able to have murdered Kelly by reason of the police giving him bail on Nov 7th. clearly that didn't happen and I think I have proved many times as to why that didn't happen.

However if you think it did and you seem sure then pray tell all because myself and the multitudes are waiting with baited breath.

If you are going to attempt to, forget about using the newspapers, and all the hearsay that went on for the weeks after that it is irrelevant to the events of Nov 7th which is all we are discussing.

Question for you
If he got bail on Nov 7th why did he not abscond then, why wait till Nov 13 when he might have risked being remanded in custody then? How could he have known the court would grant him bail or accept his sureties? A big risk to take do you not think?

He didnt know he was going to get arrested, he didn't know he was going to get the attention he got later, but when it came he had to deal with it and how did he do that ? He had to explain his arrest and detention somehow, worst of the two evils do you not think?

I also note you make no comment about the issue of handwriting I eluded to earlier, is that because there is no answer to it?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[mklhawley]

I answered your questions, so instead of answering mine, you ask more loaded questions. Typical.

[Trevor Marriott]

I answered your questions, so instead of answering mine, you ask more loaded questions. Typical.

They are only perceived to be loaded to those who cant answer them ?

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win” Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948)

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mike,

Sorry to interrupt, but could you please answer my earlier question.

Regards,

Simon