Was Tumblety in Jail during the Kelly Murder?

[Chris]

why would they put him jail for two days if he had already been on bail?

It may be that bail was set at a higher amount at the committal, as it was in the case of Hamilton De Tatham.

The case of Henry George Ginger, posted by Gideon Fell in 2008, is a parallel, in that he was bailed before committal, and bail was accepted at the committal on 15 November, but according to the calendar he wasn't bailed until the following day:
http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.p...9&postcount=48

[mklhawley]

The case could only be tried at The Central Criminal Court and the due process is that before anyone can go to the higher court they have to be committed by the lower court. He had to go before a magistrate at the police court on Nov 7/8th and on 14th

Wrong, which is your whole problem with your interpretation (aside from the fact that Assistant Commissioner Anderson getting personally involved with Tumblety the Ripper suspect if he was in jail during the Kelly murder makes absolutely no sense).

He had to go before a magistrate at police court on November 14 only. Per the criminial court calendars, the case was initiated on November 7 by those who arrest, the police (placed into custody) not Hannay. Per British Law, the police authorities could give police bail (that's why they call it police bail) and then released him until November 14.



They did not arrest him with a warrant because they already had him there due to the arrest on suspicion

So, why have I answered your questions Trevor, yet you failed to answer mine? Hmmmm.


Mike

[mklhawley]

Jonathan pointed this out, but it's worth repeating. Note how Tumblety answered the reporter's question:

"How long were you in prison?"

"Two or three days; but I don't care to talk about it. When I think of the way I was treated in London, it makes me lose all control of myself. It was shameful, horrible."


Two or three days! If it was over a full week, and Tumblety was bitching about the treatment he received, don't you think he would have said that?

How interesting that this perfectly conforms to Tumblety being released on police bail during the Kelly murder.

Sincerely,

Mike

[GUT]

Here's what fits BOTH British Law and the corroborating evidence:

1. Tumblety arrested without a warrant on suspicion prior to November 7.
2. They didn't have enough to charge him, so he was 'received into custody' WITHOUT A WARRANT for the charge of gross indecency and indecent assault on November 7 (per court calendar).
3. Received police bail (per British Law) until Scotland Yard could argue to police magistrate Hannay why the case should go to central criminal court (it would have sucked for them if they tried and fail, so putting him in front of Hannay on November 7th was a bad idea). Released.
4. Went in front of Hannay on November 14, who agreed with Scotland Yard and passed it onto central criminal court to be first heard on November 20th.
Hannay gave Tumblety bail 'on remand', so Tumblety was put in jail for two days
5. Tumblety paid the bail on November 16, so he had to go back in front of Hannay to do this. Tracy Greaves finds out and wires this on November 17 to the US. Tumblety must be at central criminal court on November 20.
6. On November 20, he and his lawyer (or lawyer only) finds out his court is set for early December. Tumblety realizes he's against an airtight gross indecency case
7. Tumblety coincidentally wires money from New York on November 20. Has to pay for a transatlantic trip?
8. Littlechild states he was observed in Cologne, France, clearly on his way to La Havre.
9. November 24, Tumblety boards the La Bretagne in La Havre and leaves for New York.

Sincerley,

Mike

Mike

Some conclusions you make, I don't agree with.

But I can say this, the outline you give above is 100% plausibe.

AND it confirms with all the other known issues, ie why he was still a suspect, why he didn't carry on like a fruitcake over being locked up for over a week and only says a couple of days

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mike,

Could you please clarify your point No. 7.

Many thanks.

Regards,

Simon

[Dr. John Watson]

Regarding Tumblety's arrest as related to the Kelly murder: Tumblety was picked up on November 7, and according to his own statement as reported in the press, he was held in custody for "two or three days." If we accept the earliest estimate, it means he could have been released sometime after midnight on November 9 at the earliest. As I recall, Mary Kelly was murdered between midnight and five a.m. on November 9. For Tumblety to have been her killer, even supposing he was freed at midnight on the dot, he would have had to practically race from the police station to Dorset Street to commit the crime. All things considered, I can't imagine him being that stupid.

As for the arrest itself, my personal theory is that Tumblety was suspected of complicity with the Irish Nationalist cause and placed under periodic surveillance by CID, during which his activities in the East End were monitored and various of his contacts were discretely interviewed, among them the four young men later named witnesses in the gross indecency charge. Following onset of the Ripper murders, Tumblety's nighttime strolls in Whitechapel aroused suspicion within Metropolitan police, and eventually he was picked up for questioning in regard to the murders. What specific event triggered the arrest is unknown, but police had to release him once they established his identity and antecedents. It's not known whether Metro police were aware of CID's separate investigation, but certainly after the initial arrest, CID shared their file on the four indecency victims, and it was this evidence that enabled Metro to eventually obtain a warrant for Tumblety's arrest on those charges.

It's entirely possible that CID surveillance could have cleared Tumblety of any connection with the Ripper murders, but police interest in Tumblety continued for some time after he skipped the country, suggesting that CID did not share all its information with Metropolitan police.

John

[Trevor Marriott]

Wrong, which is your whole problem with your interpretation (aside from the fact that Assistant Commissioner Anderson getting personally involved with Tumblety the Ripper suspect if he was in jail during the Kelly murder makes absolutely no sense).

He had to go before a magistrate at police court on November 14 only. Per the criminial court calendars, the case was initiated on November 7 by those who arrest, the police (placed into custody) not Hannay. Per British Law, the police authorities could give police bail (that's why they call it police bail) and then released him until November 14.

[ATTACH]16541[/ATTACH]

They did not arrest him with a warrant because they already had him there due to the arrest on suspicion

So, why have I answered your questions Trevor, yet you failed to answer mine? Hmmmm.


Mike

Gross Indecency was an offence triable only at the Central Criminal Court. It is an offence which was only arrestable by means of a warrant issued by a magistrate.

The police would have had the warrant in their possession sworn out before a magistrate. Having arrested Tumblety it would have been executed it would have been endorsed and would have gone to the next available court with Tumblety, Nov 7 or 8th.

The court would have not granted bail in his case in his own recognizance because of the likelihood of him absconding and he clearly did not have enough time to secure sureties and to have the court verify them so they kept him in custody. In the interim time he was no doubt trying to find suitable sureties.

The remand period elapsed and was taken back to court for the committal. No doubt he was told that bail may be considered if suitable sureties were found. By the 16th sureties had been found and went before the court in person and were accepted. Tumblety was then released.

Bail was taken by stating verbally to the accused and his sureties the substance of the recognizance, thus:

"You A.B. of , and you C.D. of , and you E.F. of , severally acknowledge yourselves to owe our Sovereign Lady the Queen the several sums following, that is to say, you the said A.B. in the sum of , &c. [11 & 12 Vict. c. 42, Sched. S.1. gives the full wording and terms of the recognizance].

“It is the duty of justices to ascertain the sufficiency of the bail who tenders themselves on behalf of the accused . . .”

"The usual number of sureties is two; but sometimes only one is required, and sometimes three or more."Married women, infants, or prisoners in custody, or persons having previously been convicted of infamous crimes were ineligible as sureties. Persons standing surety had to be upright members of the community who could demonstrate upon oath before a Magistrate or Judge that, in the event of their bailee absconding [they were wholly responsible for his appearance at court], the value of their property, estates or business holdings was sufficient to cover the amount pledged. In the matter of default, payment was “to be made and levied of their several goods and chattels, lands and tenements respectively .

So no cash or other items of value were tendered to the court !

[Trevor Marriott]

Jonathan pointed this out, but it's worth repeating. Note how Tumblety answered the reporter's question:

"How long were you in prison?"

"Two or three days; but I don't care to talk about it. When I think of the way I was treated in London, it makes me lose all control of myself. It was shameful, horrible."


Two or three days! If it was over a full week, and Tumblety was bitching about the treatment he received, don't you think he would have said that?

How interesting that this perfectly conforms to Tumblety being released on police bail during the Kelly murder.

Sincerely,

Mike

There was no police bail when are you going to realize that. Police bail was when a person is charged and bailed to the next available court from a police station that would only occur if the courts were closed i.e night times, weekends,bank holidays otherwise they would be taken straight to court.

So you think that after his arrest when he is made aware the police had him under surveillance. And according to you they had nothing on him. He is released and then goes out an commits a murder the same night.

You are out with the fairies !

[Trevor Marriott]

Regarding Tumblety's arrest as related to the Kelly murder: Tumblety was picked up on November 7, and according to his own statement as reported in the press, he was held in custody for "two or three days." If we accept the earliest estimate, it means he could have been released sometime after midnight on November 9 at the earliest. As I recall, Mary Kelly was murdered between midnight and five a.m. on November 9. For Tumblety to have been her killer, even supposing he was freed at midnight on the dot, he would have had to practically race from the police station to Dorset Street to commit the crime. All things considered, I can't imagine him being that stupid.

As for the arrest itself, my personal theory is that Tumblety was suspected of complicity with the Irish Nationalist cause and placed under periodic surveillance by CID, during which his activities in the East End were monitored and various of his contacts were discretely interviewed, among them the four young men later named witnesses in the gross indecency charge. Following onset of the Ripper murders, Tumblety's nighttime strolls in Whitechapel aroused suspicion within Metropolitan police, and eventually he was picked up for questioning in regard to the murders. What specific event triggered the arrest is unknown, but police had to release him once they established his identity and antecedents. It's not known whether Metro police were aware of CID's separate investigation, but certainly after the initial arrest, CID shared their file on the four indecency victims, and it was this evidence that enabled Metro to eventually obtain a warrant for Tumblety's arrest on those charges.

It's entirely possible that CID surveillance could have cleared Tumblety of any connection with the Ripper murders, but police interest in Tumblety continued for some time after he skipped the country, suggesting that CID did not share all its information with Metropolitan police.

John

He was arrested on a warrant for the gross indecency on Nov 7th. Depending on what time of the day the arrest took place determines when he was put before the court. If it were after the court closed then he would be kept til the next day Nov 8th. The usual period for a remand would have been up to 8 days.

We know he was back before the court on Nov 14th. Because the committal took place on that day, we know the police had their indecency case sown up. The CID case was well put together by reason of the specific dates of the offences, and specific victims named who clearly must have made statements over the period of surveillance between July and November

The CID team dealing with him would have been in contact with those investigating the murders so I see no reason for them to withhold anything.

Dont forget it was Littlechild s letter where this whole Tumblety thing evolved from. But in the SB ledgers he makes mention of another as being involved in the murders. No mention of Tumblety by him there

I also think this Fenian suggestion is a smokescreen

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Jonathan H]

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?

[The Good Michael]

Regarding Tumblety's arrest as related to the Kelly murder: Tumblety was picked up on November 7, and according to his own statement as reported in the press, he was held in custody for "two or three days." If we accept the earliest estimate, it means he could have been released sometime after midnight on November 9 at the earliest.

Well, what you are going to see is much the same as with Hutchinson. He lied about some things and told the truth about others. That's how this suspect thing usually works. One builds up a logical case and then dismisses what doesn't fit in the most expedient way.

Mike

[mklhawley]

Gross Indecency was an offence triable only at the Central Criminal Court. It is an offence which was only arrestable by means of a warrant issued by a magistrate.

The police would have had the warrant in their possession sworn out before a magistrate. Having arrested Tumblety it would have been executed it would have been endorsed and would have gone to the next available court with Tumblety, Nov 7 or 8th.

The court would have not granted bail in his case in his own recognizance because of the likelihood of him absconding and he clearly did not have enough time to secure sureties and to have the court verify them so they kept him in custody. In the interim time he was no doubt trying to find suitable sureties.

The remand period elapsed and was taken back to court for the committal. No doubt he was told that bail may be considered if suitable sureties were found. By the 16th sureties had been found and went before the court in person and were accepted. Tumblety was then released.

Bail was taken by stating verbally to the accused and his sureties the substance of the recognizance, thus:

"You A.B. of , and you C.D. of , and you E.F. of , severally acknowledge yourselves to owe our Sovereign Lady the Queen the several sums following, that is to say, you the said A.B. in the sum of , &c. [11 & 12 Vict. c. 42, Sched. S.1. gives the full wording and terms of the recognizance].

“It is the duty of justices to ascertain the sufficiency of the bail who tenders themselves on behalf of the accused . . .”

"The usual number of sureties is two; but sometimes only one is required, and sometimes three or more."Married women, infants, or prisoners in custody, or persons having previously been convicted of infamous crimes were ineligible as sureties. Persons standing surety had to be upright members of the community who could demonstrate upon oath before a Magistrate or Judge that, in the event of their bailee absconding [they were wholly responsible for his appearance at court], the value of their property, estates or business holdings was sufficient to cover the amount pledged. In the matter of default, payment was “to be made and levied of their several goods and chattels, lands and tenements respectively .

So no cash or other items of value were tendered to the court !

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.

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

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mike,

May I refer you to my Post #410.

Regards,

Simon

[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.

[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