Was Tumblety in Jail during the Kelly Murder?

[mklhawley]

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

Hi Simon,

We know Tumblety wired for some cash (suriites) on November 20th from England and he was onboard the La Betagne on the 24th. My guess is he would not have been able to be officially consider jumping bail until he was off the Island, on the 24th.

Mike

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mike,

How much did Tumblety require to be transferred?

Regards,

Simon

[mklhawley]

Hi Mike,

How much did Tumblety require to be transferred?

Regards,

Simon

As I recall, he wired Henry Clews and Company out of New York on the 20th. His two 'associates' paid $300 when he posted bail on the 16th, so I'm sure it was to pay them back or have some travel cash to get home. This is coming from memory, but I could doublecheck.

Mike

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mike,

Was Tumblety's 20th November 1888 request for a sterling letter of credit in the amount of £263 1s. 6d?

Regards,

Simon

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Simon,

We know Tumblety wired for some cash (suriites) on November 20th from England and he was onboard the La Betagne on the 24th. My guess is he would not have been able to be officially consider jumping bail until he was off the Island, on the 24th.

Mike

I would suggest a person intending to jump bail and leave the country makes up his mind to do so and leave the country long before he physically leaves. Its not a spur of the moment action, especially as Tumblety was concerned

You dont make your way to the airport or ship terminal and suddenly say to yourself "I think I will do the offski" and get on a boat or plane.

And you still haven answered as to why if Tumblety got bail on Nov 7th why he didn't abscond sooner ?

You do say the silliest of things at times !

[Jonathan H]

Dear Trevor

Tumblety considered himself a wronged gentleman, albeit self-made, with deep pockets and many VIP acquaintances.

If he absconds he can never come back. It will look like an admission of guilt, either as the Ripper or as a 'pervert. He had commercial interests in London.

It makes perfect sense to me that Tumblety initially tried to bluff/brazen his way out in order to maintain his somewhat frayed rep. We see this m.o. repeated throughout his 'career': I'm the victim, I'll fight these slurs by curs, and then he pulls up stumps and blows town.

[The Good Michael]

Hi Jonathan,

I'd rather not debate all your points because... it's impossible, I think. I like Druitt as a suspect, but you have too many connect-the-dot componemts that, while logical, require a lot of surmise. Sims seems to me to be a bad choice of a person to use as support, but then again, there aren't many sources to be sure. In all the components you use involving Sims, he seems to say something different each time. This shows me that he hadn't a great grasp on the suspect situation and perhaps the simplest solution to what his interest is, is that he was looking to write a new drama or a book and wanted to at least take a stab (pardon the pun) at getting some of the facts right. Instead, we are left with suspect conflation and misinformation, and so his idea loses momentum and sputters before it begins.

Mike

[mklhawley]

I would suggest a person intending to jump bail and leave the country makes up his mind to do so and leave the country long before he physically leaves. Its not a spur of the moment action, especially as Tumblety was concerned

You dont make your way to the airport or ship terminal and suddenly say to yourself "I think I will do the offski" and get on a boat or plane.

And you still haven answered as to why if Tumblety got bail on Nov 7th why he didn't abscond sooner ?

Because he never absconded, or bolted, because of being suspected of the ripper murders. He did not fear this. He had every reason to stay in London, because his task was not done. The ONLY reason why he left was because he knew the gross indecency charges were going to stick (specifically, on November 20th) and he had to leave before the early December criminal court case. Four counts would be too hard to beat.

He was not going to leave the country after he received police bail on November 7th, because, at this time, he wasn't going to central criminal court, just police court with Hannay. He knew he was going to be seeing the police magistrate on November 14, and there was a chance the magistrate would not send it off to Central Criminal Court (his lawyer knew darn well this was where gross indecency cases were going and that he might be in jail for no less than one year). Once he received bail on November 14 and paid it on November 16 knowing full well he and his lawyer were going to know what would happen to him in the November 20 meeting (how coincidental that he quickly wired money on that day to by a ticket home to New York).

Trevor, your argument fails. Tumblety only sneaked out of the country because of the air tight case against him on gross indecency.

Jonathan is correct. There definitely was a reason why he wasn't ready to leave London. Do you recall where he was just prior to this in January? Toronto. Once he jumped bail, he couldn't even go back to Toronto, because Canadian officials would have shipped him back to England. Joe Chetcuti discovered Tumblety making a request to the Canadian Prime Minister to go back into that country! Do you know why? ...I'm not going to tell you. I've said too much.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Jonathan H]

Thanks Mike

You put that much better than I did.

To Mike

Fair enough.

I think Sims is a Macnaghten source at one remove, and is thus invaluable and indispensable.

Also, that Sims propagated the Drowned Doctor so much, from Mac, puts the memo--and its 'errors'--in a whole different light: e.g. it is part of a public relations campaign. Therefore it's data cannot be entirely accurate or the Druitts would be exposed.

My book will try and prove the veracity of that revisionist position.

[Trevor Marriott]

Because he never absconded, or bolted, because of being suspected of the ripper murders. He did not fear this. He had every reason to stay in London, because his task was not done. The ONLY reason why he left was because he knew the gross indecency charges were going to stick (specifically, on November 20th) and he had to leave before the early December criminal court case. Four counts would be too hard to beat.

He was not going to leave the country after he received police bail on November 7th, because, at this time, he wasn't going to central criminal court, just police court with Hannay. He knew he was going to be seeing the police magistrate on November 14, and there was a chance the magistrate would not send it off to Central Criminal Court (his lawyer knew darn well this was where gross indecency cases were going and that he might be in jail for no less than one year). Once he received bail on November 14 and paid it on November 16 knowing full well he and his lawyer were going to know what would happen to him in the November 20 meeting (how coincidental that he quickly wired money on that day to by a ticket home to New York).

Trevor, your argument fails. Tumblety only sneaked out of the country because of the air tight case against him on gross indecency.

Jonathan is correct. There definitely was a reason why he wasn't ready to leave London. Do you recall where he was just prior to this in January? Toronto. Once he jumped bail, he couldn't even go back to Toronto, because Canadian officials would have shipped him back to England. Joe Chetcuti discovered Tumblety making a request to the Canadian Prime Minister to go back into that country! Do you know why? ...I'm not going to tell you. I've said too much.

Sincerely,

Mike

I dont have any argument I am stating facts and you and JH continue to muddy the waters.

I think you will find that gross indecency was triable only on indictment and therefore right from the time he was arrested he would have known that, and would have known the he faced a lengthy prison sentence.

The one thing you are right about is that Tumblety absconded because he knew he was bang to right on the indecency charges, something he would have known on Nov 7th. So with that in mind if he had been bailed on Nov 7th he would have absconded there and then.

There was no extradition from the US to The UK on Indecency charges at that time

I think you will also find that when bail is granted with a surety, the surety has to be in place before bail is granted by the court. That why the court and police needed up to 24 hours to verify and check out sureties back then. No monies are handed over before or after bail is granted other than if the suspect fails to appear.

I say again Tumblety was in custody the night Kelly was murdered.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[GUT]

But if he was bailed on the 7th and back before the Beak some time later for committal, he could be reasonably confident of getting bail again to the Higher Court so the rush wouldn't be on, it would only be once committed that he would face a different judge and bail had a greater chance of being revoked. So time was on side if he had a bit of nerve.

[Trevor Marriott]

I want to put this whole thing to bed now and have set out below in clear sight why Tumblety could not have been out on Nov 8th the day Kelly was murdered.

I apologize in advance for the lengthy post but the content is important and does follow in some chronlogocal order and sets out how the legal process worked in 1888.

Tumbley was arrested on warrant for the indecency offences, there were set procedures in place for such an arrest on warrant.

Section 3 of the Indictable Offences Act 1848.

“To the Constable of___________________ and to all other peace officers in the said(County) of _________________ Whereas A.B. of ____________________Hath this day been charged upon oath before the undersigned (Magistrates name) of Her Majesty's Justices of the Peace in and for the said (County) for that he on ______________at _____________ did (Offence)These are therefore to command you, in Her Majesty's name, forthwith to apprehend the said A.B. and to bring him before (me ) or some other Justice of The Peace in and for the said (County) to answer unto the said charge, and to be further dealt with according to law. Given under my hand and seal this ____________Day of ____________In the year of our Lord___________ at____________ in the (County) aforesaid.”

So in effect if the court were sitting on Nov 7 then he would have been taken straight to court and Nov 7 was such a day.

Having been taken straight to court there is the next phase

"If such persons be thereupon apprehended and brought before any such justice or justices, such justice or justices upon its being proved upon oath or affirmation before him or them that the person so apprehended is the same person who is charged and named in such indictment shall, without further inquiry or examination commit him for trial or admit him to bail, in a manner herein after mentioned.”

"If the investigation before the magistrate cannot be completed at a single hearing, he may from time to time remand the accused to gaol for any period not exceeding eight days; or may allow him his liberty in the interval upon his entering into recognizance’s, with or without sureties, for reappearance" [11 and 12 Vict. c.42, s.21].

And then we move on !

Here again we must refer to the Old Bailey Court Calendar for November 1888, a document published after the close of that month's Session on Friday 23rd November. The Calendar clearly states that Tumblety was committed for trial on 14th November and not bailed until 16th November 1888. This shows his sureties were not in place on Nov 14th and also shows that up until Nov 16th he was IN CUSTODY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

As it is clear that Tumblety was not bailed following his 14th November committal for trial, he would have immediately been transferred from Marlborough Street Police Court to Newgate Prison to await trial.

It is therefore possible Tumblety was bailed from Newgate Prison on [Friday] 16th November 1888. Under 11 & 12 Vict. c. 42, s. 23, Indictable Offences Act, 1848,

“Where a person charged with other indictable misdemeanors is committed to prison to take his trial for the same, he can apply—

" . . . to any one of the visiting justices of such prison, or to any other justice of the peace for the same county, riding, division, liberty, city, borough, or place, before the first day of the sitting or session at which he is to be tried, or before the day to which such sitting or session may be adjourned, to be admitted to bail, such justice shall according admit him to bail in manner aforesaid; and in all cases where such accused person in custody shall be admitted to bail by a justice of the peace other than the committing justice or justices as aforesaid, such justice of the peace so admitting him to bail shall forthwith transmit the recognizance or recognizance’s of bail to the committing justice [in Tumblety's case, J.L. Hannay] or justices, or one of them, to be by him or them transmitted, with the examination, to the proper officer . . ."

11 & 12 Vict. c. 42, s.21 and the eligibility of bail in cases of misdemeanor.

“Bail Before or After Committal — A distinction appears to be drawn as to the rights of an accused person to bail in cases of misdemeanor before and after committal for trial. The generally received impression appears to be that the right of bail in misdemeanor does not arise until committal for trial.”

It therefore appears that Tumblety was not eligible for bail until after his Wednesday 14th November committal for trial.

"In suspicious cases twenty-four hours', and sometimes forty-eight hours' notice of bail is usually required; when the bail appears, whether such notice has been given or not, the justice or prosecutor, or any other professional person on his behalf, may examine them on oath as to their sufficiency.
“It is the duty of justices to ascertain the sufficiency of the bail who tenders themselves on behalf of the accused . . .”

I wait to see how Mr Hawley and Mr Hainsworth attempt to wriggle out of this now

[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?

[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]

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?