Was Tumblety in Jail during the Kelly Murder?

[mklhawley]

Somebody please tell me where the British police have, or ever have had, the power to "detain someone for questioning" without arrest. If you have "detained someone for questioning" you have arrested them.

Regards, Bridewell.

You are correct Bridewell. They arrested someone WITHOUT A WARRANT, just as they did with Tumblety. Victorian London police could arrest someone on the streets WITHOUT A WARRANT because of what they deemed as suspicious behavior.

Lethbridge News, 10 October 1888
London, Oct. 1. …The police have made no progress in their efforts to establish a clue to the murderer and have further lost public confidence in their efficiency by the fact that persons arrested on suspicion of connection with the tragedy were released today for want of even a scintilla of evidence upon which to justify their retention in custody.

The Irish Times, 11 September 1888
Some six or seven men have been arrested on suspicion, but most of them speedily satisfied the police of their innocence and were released…

Walthamstow and Leyton Guardian, 20 July 1889
At about five o'clock in the morning a man was seen lurking about the scene of the murder, and his movements attracted the suspicion of the police he was arrested and brought to Commercial-street Police Station, where he was searched…

The Daily Telegraph, October 2, 1888
Up to the present about half-a-dozen people have been arrested and released.

And this was in accordance to British Law, as well:

MPA 1839, Section 69: Every person taken into custody by any constable belonging to the Metropolitan Police, without warrant, except persons detained for the mere purpose of ascertaining their name or residence, shall be forthwith delivered into the custody of the constable in charge of the nearest station-house in order that such person may be secured until he can be brought before a magistrate…

Police could take anyone in and justify it by ascertaining their name and residence. Is there any evidence they used this exception. Yes, and it comes from Francis Tumblety’s arrest for the Whitechapel crimes:

San Francisco Chronicle, 18 November 1888
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...

Sincerely,

Mike

[Trevor Marriott]

In accordance with the established tradition of this thread, torn-up cheque in the post.

Regards, Bridewell

I must desist from this frivolity as I am on an admin final warning and I might get banned for going off topic and I am sure you all wouldnt want that would you ?

[c.d.]

have you not read post 202 ?

Yes, I did read post 202 and found it quite confusing. I would interpret it to mean that a suspect is not required to answer questions and that he cannot be forced or threatened to give information. You could also interpret what is written there to mean that the suspect should be brought in but no questions can be asked of him. I guess they are supposed to offer him tea and then just stare at him. That would not seem to make a lot of sense but I admit that I could be reading it wrong.

c.d.

[Bridewell]

Agreement With Trevor

You are totally correct

In accordance with the established tradition of this thread, torn-up cheque in the post.

Regards, Bridewell

[Trevor Marriott]

In the movie "In Cold Blood" (an excellent movie by the way), they arrested Dick and Perry for passing bad checks and violating parole. That enabled the police to question them while withholding the real reason which was suspicion of murder.

c.d.

have you not read post 202 ?

[c.d.]

In the movie "In Cold Blood" (an excellent movie by the way), they arrested Dick and Perry for passing bad checks and violating parole. That enabled the police to question them while withholding the real reason which was suspicion of murder.

c.d.

[c.d.]

I find it very hard to believe that the police were overly concerned about cases of gross indecency at this time. I think it much more likely that it was a fishing expedition. Once they had him in custody, regardless of the charge, they could ask him the question that was most important to them ...."where were you on the night of ---? Can anyone verify that?"

If Tumblety didn't get that there was more going on than a mere charge of gross indecency, he had to be ten kinds of idiot. He would have to be a complete fool to think that he wasn't being followed by the police after this. To then go out and kill Mary Kelly? Nope.

c.d.

[Trevor Marriott]

It would have bounced anyway.

Monty

Would i do that to you

[Monty]

Cheque torn up

It would have bounced anyway.

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

Dont get use to it.

I am just sharing with all, and dispelling the cabal myth at the same time.

Monty

Cheque torn up

[Monty]

Thank you for that (cheques in the post)

Dont get use to it.

I am just sharing with all, and dispelling the cabal myth at the same time.

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

And to support the sailent points in Trevors post, this is a City of London Police Order 1891.

Monty

Thank you for that (cheques in the post)

[Monty]

To make the picture clear to both you and other researches

I also refer to Lord Brampton otherwise known as Sir Henry Hawkins and his address to Police Constables in 1882. Lord Brampton was a senior High Court Judge from 1876-1898

Questioning when Permissible

“When a crime has been committed, and you are engaged in endeavoring to discover the author of it, there is no objection to your making inquiries of, or putting questions to, any person from whom you think you can obtain useful information. It is your duty to discover the criminal if you can, and to do this you must make such inquiries, and if in the course of them you should chance to interrogate and to receive answers from a man who turns out to be the criminal himself, and who inculpates himself by these answers, they are nevertheless admissible in evidence, and may be used against him.

When questioning not permissible

When, however, a Constable has a warrant to arrest, or is about to arrest a person on his own authority, or has a person in custody for a crime, it is wrong to question such person touching the crime of which he is accused.

Neither judge, magistrate nor juryman, can interrogate an accused person—unless he tenders himself as a witness, or require him to answer questions tending to incriminate himself. Much less, then, ought a Constable to do so, whose duty as regards that person is simply to arrest and detain him in safe custody.

On arresting a man a Constable ought simply to read his warrant, or tell the accused the nature of the charge upon which he is arrested, leaving it to the person so arrested to say anything or nothing as he pleases.

For a Constable to press any accused person to say anything with reference to the crime of which he is accused is very wrong. It is well also that it should be generally known that if a statement made by an accused person is made under or in consequence of any promise or threat, even though it amounts to an absolute confession, it cannot be used against the person making it.

There is, however, no objection to a Constable listening to any mere voluntary statement which a prisoner desires to make, and repeating such statement in evidence; nor is there any objection to his repeating in evidence any conversation he may have heard between the prisoner and any other person.

But he ought not by anything he says or does, to invite or encourage an accused person to make any statement, without first cautioning him that he is not bound to say anything tending to incriminate himself, and that anything he says may be used against him”

This i think shatter a few theories and reserachers suggestions.

And to support the sailent points in Trevors post, this is a City of London Police Order 1891.

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

A concrete example was given. Of someone who was bailed by a magistrate at that place and time. That's not changing the goalposts, it's upping the ante.

Roy

If thats what you think you are as misguided as others you clearly dont understand the victorian legal system procedures.

[Roy Corduroy]

posters now change the goaplosts by completely disregarding the above theories and now are clinging to a misguided belief that Tumblety was bailed by the magistrate on Nov 7th.

A concrete example was given. Of someone who was bailed by a magistrate at that place and time. That's not changing the goalposts, it's upping the ante.

Roy