Was Tumblety in Jail during the Kelly Murder?

[Monty]

To clarify, Indecent Assault, Gross Indecency (exposure) were misdemeanors. Sodomy is a felony.

Any willful exposure may result in apprehension as a rogue and vagabond, the all encompassing offence which gets around a lot of legal barriers of the time.

So whilst Trevor is correct in stating Gross Indecency is a misdemeanor, arrest can be made as willful exposure, a breach of the peace.

Monty

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mike,

Please stop comparing apples and oranges.

The bank letter was one of Tumblety's many self-written testimonials to his own wonderfulness. It was not contained in his 1889 pamphlet.

Drexel, Morgan & Co. did not become J.P Morgan & Co. until 1895, so I guess Tumblety was exercising his powers of precognition.

I am neither on your side nor against you.

Regards,

Simon

[mklhawley]

Hi Mike,

Please stop comparing apples and oranges.

The bank letter was one of Tumblety's many self-written testimonials to his own wonderfulness. It was not contained in his 1889 pamphlet.

Drexel, Morgan & Co. did not become J.P Morgan & Co. until 1895, so I guess Tumblety was exercising his powers of precognition.

I am neither on your side nor against you.

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon,

I see apples and oranges as both fruit. All human beings, including me, experience confirmation bias, where we emphasize supporting evidence and de-emphasize conflicting evidence. Some reject conflicting evidence, such as the credible evidence showing Assistant Commissioner Anderson still taking seriously Ripper suspect Francis Tumblety, which is a psychological issue of 'accommodation v. assimilation'.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Trevor Marriott]

To clarify, Indecent Assault, Gross Indecency (exposure) were misdemeanors. Sodomy is a felony.

Any willful exposure may result in apprehension as a rogue and vagabond, the all encompassing offence which gets around a lot of legal barriers of the time.

So whilst Trevor is correct in stating Gross Indecency is a misdemeanor, arrest can be made as willful exposure, a breach of the peace.

Monty

Yes you are right, but if that had have been the case there would likely as not have been an additional charge for the offence for that day, and not forgetting the arrest for those other offences you mention would only apply if found committing

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mike,

If I were you I'd get that broken flashlight fixed.

Regards,

Simon

[Trevor Marriott]

Since the primary sources conflict with your opinion, it's up to you to disprove it. Prove that he created some of this himself. I demonstrated how it was impossible for him to do so. Oh yah, you failed to read that.

You clearly don't know the difference between a primary and secondary source.

Simon has already shattered one of your "primary sources" which you seek to rely on how reliable are the rest ? hmmmmmmmmmmmmm

[Monty]

Yes you are right, but if that had have been the case there would likely as not have been an additional charge for the offence for that day, and not forgetting the arrest for those other offences you mention would only apply if found committing

Agrdee, however it is far easier to arrest than to find convincing evidence to charge.

We only know the charge, not the grounds of arrest. Further offences may have come to light during the investigation in to the original crime for which Tumblety was arrested.

Monty

[Batman]

If he was never arrested or suspected of the ripper crimes in November 1888 there would be no scoop to print would there?

The journalism followed him absconding and that is unreliable. Some of that press he created himself

Did the police confirm that he was a Ripper suspect to the press at the time or that he was arrested as a suspect ? NO

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The scoop is that he was in jail at the time of MJKs murder. That's the scoop because every other paper is claiming he is a JTK suspect. That scoop would have ruled him out at the time. The journalist who did that would have played a trump card.

Yet we are to believe not a single journalist or paper picked up on this and that London police allowed the papers to run wild speculations without this simple and yet crucial point to correct it all.

It is a crucial point for people who reject Tumblety as JtR (and it doesn't even mean he is JtR, which is another issue completely).

So again which is more likely? He wasn't in jail at the time of the murder of MJK hence why this point was never raised by anyone. He was in jail at the time but investigators made a blunder in not noting and revealing this and still had men in America searching after him? This is bordering on Keystone cops right?

[Trevor Marriott]

Agrdee, however it is far easier to arrest than to find convincing evidence to charge.

We only know the charge, not the grounds of arrest. Further offences may have come to light during the investigation in to the original crime for which Tumblety was arrested.

Monty

The grounds were sufficient for a magistrate to issue them with an arrest warrant, and having been arrested they must have had the evidence to charge otherwise there would have been no point in arresting him.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

The scoop is that he was in jail at the time of MJKs murder. That's the scoop because every other paper is claiming he is a JTK suspect. That scoop would have ruled him out at the time. The journalist who did that would have played a trump card.

Yet we are to believe not a single journalist or paper picked up on this and that London police allowed the papers to run wild speculations without this simple and yet crucial point to correct it all.

It is a crucial point for people who reject Tumblety as JtR (and it doesn't even mean he is JtR, which is another issue completely).

So again which is more likely? He wasn't in jail at the time of the murder of MJK hence why this point was never raised by anyone. He was in jail at the time but investigators made a blunder in not noting and revealing this and still had men in America searching after him? This is bordering on Keystone cops right?

There were lots of people in jail at the time were any of them looked on as ripper suspects ?

[mklhawley]

BOSTON GLOBE, November 18,1888

DOING WHITECHAPEL
TWO ARRESTS ON SUSPICION MADE YESTERDAY.
ONE A CHUM OF THE PRINCE OF WALES AND THE OTHER AN AMERICAN PHYSICIAN.

London, Nov. 17-

Just think of it ! One of the Prince of Wales' own exclusives, a member of his household and cavalry and one of the best known swells about town who glory in the glamor of the Guelphs, getting into custody on suspicion of being the Whitechapel murderer. It is the talk of all clubdom tonight.
Just now it is a fashionable fad to slum it in Whitechapel and every night scores of young men who have never been in the East End before in their lives, prowl around the neighborhood of the murders talking with frightened women. So long as two men keep together and do not make nuisances of themselves, the police do not interfere with them. But if a man goes off alone and tries to lure a woman off the street into a secluded corner, he is pretty sure to get into trouble.
This was the case of Sir George Arthur of Prince Wales set. He put on an old coat and slouch hat and went to Whitechapel for a little fun. He got it. It occurred to two policemen that Sir George answered very much to the description of Jack The Ripper and they watched him and when they saw him talking with a woman they collared him. He protested and threatened them with the vengeance of the royal wrath, but in vain. Finally a chance was given him to send to a fashionable West End Club and prove his identity and he was released with profuse apologies for the mistake. The affair was kept out of the newspaper, but the jolly young baronets at the Brooks Club considered the joke too good to keep quiet.
Another arrest was a man who gave the name of Dr. Kumbelty of New York. The police could not hold him on suspicion of the Whitechapel crimes, but he has been committed for trial, under a 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 from New York and that he has been in the habit of crossing the ocean twice a year for several years.
A score of men have been arrested by the police this week on suspicion, but the right man still roams at large and everybody is momentarily expecting to hear of another victim.
The large sums offered by private individualsas rewards have induced hundreds of amateur detectives to take a hand in the chase, but to no avail.
Leon Rothschild has offered an income of 2 pounds a week for life for the man who gives the information leading to the arrest and conviction of the assassin.



I don’t get it Trevor; the very same New York World Cable, where their Chief London correspondent, Tracy Greaves, reported on Tumblety first being arrest on suspicion, was the only report about Sir George Arthur also being arrested on suspicion. You whole-heartedly believe this discovery of Greaves, yet you whole-heartedly reject the other. How do I know this? Your own article:


“On 30 November 1888, the Wrexham advertiser, Clwyd, Wales, Britain, also published the story, but withheld Sir George Arthur’s name. Wild coincidences aside, Tumblety seems to have appropriated it, complete with slouch had, for himself. His story would appear to have been an elaborate fiction.” (Lost at Sea, p. 44, Rip 127)


So, how can I accept your interpretation of events when you clearly show bias against Tumblety as a Ripper suspect?

Mike

[Trevor Marriott]

BOSTON GLOBE, November 18,1888

DOING WHITECHAPEL
TWO ARRESTS ON SUSPICION MADE YESTERDAY.
ONE A CHUM OF THE PRINCE OF WALES AND THE OTHER AN AMERICAN PHYSICIAN.

London, Nov. 17-

Just think of it ! One of the Prince of Wales' own exclusives, a member of his household and cavalry and one of the best known swells about town who glory in the glamor of the Guelphs, getting into custody on suspicion of being the Whitechapel murderer. It is the talk of all clubdom tonight.
Just now it is a fashionable fad to slum it in Whitechapel and every night scores of young men who have never been in the East End before in their lives, prowl around the neighborhood of the murders talking with frightened women. So long as two men keep together and do not make nuisances of themselves, the police do not interfere with them. But if a man goes off alone and tries to lure a woman off the street into a secluded corner, he is pretty sure to get into trouble.
This was the case of Sir George Arthur of Prince Wales set. He put on an old coat and slouch hat and went to Whitechapel for a little fun. He got it. It occurred to two policemen that Sir George answered very much to the description of Jack The Ripper and they watched him and when they saw him talking with a woman they collared him. He protested and threatened them with the vengeance of the royal wrath, but in vain. Finally a chance was given him to send to a fashionable West End Club and prove his identity and he was released with profuse apologies for the mistake. The affair was kept out of the newspaper, but the jolly young baronets at the Brooks Club considered the joke too good to keep quiet.
Another arrest was a man who gave the name of Dr. Kumbelty of New York. The police could not hold him on suspicion of the Whitechapel crimes, but he has been committed for trial, under a 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 from New York and that he has been in the habit of crossing the ocean twice a year for several years.
A score of men have been arrested by the police this week on suspicion, but the right man still roams at large and everybody is momentarily expecting to hear of another victim.
The large sums offered by private individualsas rewards have induced hundreds of amateur detectives to take a hand in the chase, but to no avail.
Leon Rothschild has offered an income of 2 pounds a week for life for the man who gives the information leading to the arrest and conviction of the assassin.



I don’t get it Trevor; the very same New York World Cable, where their Chief London correspondent, Tracy Greaves, reported on Tumblety first being arrest on suspicion, was the only report about Sir George Arthur also being arrested on suspicion. You whole-heartedly believe this discovery of Greaves, yet you whole-heartedly reject the other. How do I know this? Your own article:


“On 30 November 1888, the Wrexham advertiser, Clwyd, Wales, Britain, also published the story, but withheld Sir George Arthur’s name. Wild coincidences aside, Tumblety seems to have appropriated it, complete with slouch had, for himself. His story would appear to have been an elaborate fiction.” (Lost at Sea, p. 44, Rip 127)


So, how can I accept your interpretation of events when you clearly show bias against Tumblety as a Ripper suspect?

Mike

You are again using newspapers secondary sources

May I also point out to you seeing as you keep mentioning the Centtal Criminal Court calender 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.

Also contained in this official document is evidence to suggest that Tumblety had not been granted earlier bail at a Police Court, for two other persons on trial during the Old Bailey December Sessions—Jane Levy and Arthur Andrew Cottee—are noted as having been "Bailed at Police Court".

No such notation appears in the entry for Tumblety

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[mklhawley]

Trevor, don't ignore the huge elephant in the room. You have completely rejected Tumblety arrested on suspicion, but you have completely accepted the Sir George Arthur story. There's no way around it, bias against Tumblety as a Ripper suspect.

But, if you properly reject the Sir George Arthur story and go against what you wrote, you're going agianst Simon. He did help you with your Lost at Sea article didn't he? I recall Simon arguing against Tumblety's slouch hat with the Arthur story in the past.

If you accept the Sir George Arthur story, then you're saying Greaves got it right, even though it was not in the British papers (an argument you used in the past against Tumblety), so then you must accept Greaves got it right with the Tumblety being first arrested on suspicion.

Sorry Trevor. Are you going to try and side step again?

Mike

[Monty]

The grounds were sufficient for a magistrate to issue them with an arrest warrant, and having been arrested they must have had the evidence to charge otherwise there would have been no point in arresting him.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

So you know fully the grounds of arrest? Not charge, arrest.

No warrant was required from the courts if the offence was indecent exposure, which came under Vagrancy act.

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

So you know fully the grounds of arrest? Not charge, arrest.

No warrant was required from the courts if the offence was indecent exposure, which came under Vagrancy act.

Monty

But like the others had to be found committing !!!!!!