Was Tumblety in Jail during the Kelly Murder?

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Mike,

This is why I ignore it.

NY World, 17th November: "The police could not hold him on suspicion of having been guilty of the Whitechapel crimes . . ."

Tumblety [NY World, January 1889]: "I was charged with a series of the most horrible crimes ever recorded."

Littlechild letter, 1913: "Tumblety was arrested at the time of the murders in connection with unnatural offences and charged at Marlborough Street . . ."

It's not exactly what you might call a coherent narrative.

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon,

It does seem, by the above snippets, that Dr T's arrest was not described as an arrest of a suspect in the Ripper crimes by the press...and although I agree the statements are less than clear, only the quote attributed to Dr T suggests he was held on suspicion for those particular crimes.

I mentioned a while back that it seems rational that if they were to hold anyone for anything that they would at the very least have to have some cause to do so. This wasnt Poland under the Nazi's after all.

That he was a person under scrutiny at the time is easily proven, that he was suspected at that time of some complicity with specific regard to the Ripper murders, not so easy.

Best regards,

Michael

[Roy Corduroy]

For the last year, we've been hearing Simon and Trevor hint that there was clear evidence that Tumblety was in jail during the Kelly murder,

Trevor, bless his heart wrote a good article. But using Simon's method it turns to dust anyway. According to Simon, the least reliable part of the case are the police reports. Apply that approach to all members of the justice system - magistrates, prosecutors, gaolers. If we can't believe the police reports, then why should we believe these other authority figures followed their own written rules, the ones Trevor shared.

Roy

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mike,

This is why I ignore it.

NY World, 17th November: "The police could not hold him on suspicion of having been guilty of the Whitechapel crimes . . ."

Tumblety [NY World, January 1889]: "I was charged with a series of the most horrible crimes ever recorded."

Littlechild letter, 1913: "Tumblety was arrested at the time of the murders in connection with unnatural offences and charged at Marlborough Street . . ."

It's not exactly what you might call a coherent narrative.

Regards,

Simon

[mklhawley]

I'm still interested in why you are ignoring this:

The problem with Trevor’s proposal is that, even though it seems to conform to British Law, it does not fit all of the evidence. I am going to propose an alternative series of events that fits both British Law AND additional evidence. Sir Robert Anderson continuing the Tumblety case after the Kelly murder aside, the evidence I would like to focus on is the London World News cable source, which was reported in the San Francisco Chronicle on November 18, 1888:

San Francisco Chronicle, 18 November 1888,
A Heavy Swell Arrested in Whitechapel.
A Score of Prisoners, but No Clew.
[THE NEW YORK WORLD CABLE SERVICE; COPYRIGHTED, 1888 - SPECIAL TO THE CHRONICLE]
LONDON, November 17.
…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; that he is from New York, and that he has been in the habit of crossing the ocean twice a year for several years.
A score of other men have been arrested by the police this week on suspicion of being the murderer, but the right man still roams at large…

Why should the cable source be taken more seriously that a mere US newspaper report? The cable source claimed its source was the police, and to confirm this being true, the points of fact given were correct and could only have come from police. “The police say this is the man’s right name as proved by letters in his possession.” All who now know Tumblety’s habits agree he did just this. How would a reporter, who had no idea Tumblety was a murder suspect at all, pull that correct fact out of thin air? There was no time for the reporter to do a background investigation before sending the cable. Just as Trevor stated, the case was in private session, so neither British nor US papers would have known, but once he posted bail on November 16th, the cable source (most likely stationed at Marlborough Street Station, since a New York World correspondent was stationed there, the timing is perfect, and the details of the case are correct) spoke with police about Tumblety and then sent the cable off by November 17th.

Also as I stated earlier, why would the London cable source just make it up about him being arrested on suspicion of the Whitechapel crimes, especially when Littlechild confirmed this and Tumblety admitted it?

Sincerely,

Mike

[mklhawley]

Hi Mike,

Read the BDE cutting again.

It does not say the assassin was an American wearing a slouch hat.

It says the assassin was assumed to be American because he wore a slouch hat.

Regards,

Simon

And that's EXACTLY what Tumblety claimed. Interesting that the date of the article is so close to Tumblety's initial arrest for the Whitechapel crimes.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Trevor Marriott]

This one deserves a repost, too. Excellent Mark.

Sincerely,
Mike

May I suggest both u and mark read posts carefully snd digest the contents before rushing onto here to try to post smart arse questions which have been covered before in posts

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mike,

Read the BDE cutting again.

It does not say the assassin was an American wearing a slouch hat.

It says the assassin was assumed to be American because he wore a slouch hat.

Regards,

Simon

[Chris]

Bail after committal is academic to the point in question that being when did Tumbety get bail if as it is suggested he did before his committal.

You raised the issue of the two-delay delay between Tumblety being committed and Tumblety being bailed. You suggested it indicated Tumblety hadn't been bailed previously. I'm drawing your attention to a possible explanation for the delay.

[mklhawley]

Hi Trevor,

1) How do we know that Tumbelty was not released on his own recognisances on 7 November 1888?

2) How do we know that, if Tumblety was released on surety on 7 November 1888, the person or persons providing sureties on that occasion remained willing to do so on 14 November 1888?

Regards,

Mark

This one deserves a repost, too. Excellent Mark.

Sincerely,
Mike

[mklhawley]

Yes, it seems a nonsense doesn't it, although: “It has been said among other things that the assassin is an American, because he wears a slouch hat. If so ghastly a series of tragedies may be said to possess an element of humor, it is in imputing the crimes to an American for the reason specified.” Brooklyn Daily Eagle, 10 November 1888.

Matthew Packer had selected an illustration of a man wearing an American Hat and a “man, respectably dressed, wearing a slouch hat, and carrying a black bag, was arrested and taken to Leman-street Station. Daily Telegraph, 10 November 1888, reporting an arrest the previous evening.

Maybe Tumblety wasn't talking through his hat....

This deserves a repost. An American AND a slouch hat could not have been a reference to Sir Henry George Arthur. Excellent Paul.

Sincerely,
Mike

[m_w_r]

Do you not think that if tumble ty was bailed on 7th the court would have insisted on sure ties, because in all the other cases quoted sure ties were required.

Looking at other cases I dont think is going to help in determining if and when Tumbelty got bail.

Hi Trevor,

Which is it?

Regards,

Mark

[Trevor Marriott]

Thanks to Trevor Marriott for his constructive response to my post above.

There are clearly some uncertainties about what bail arrangements would have been recorded in the calendar. Maybe some light could be shed on that by looking at some of the other entries in the calendar, in conjunction with newspaper reports.



In relation to this question, I do think we need to consider the possibility that the amount of bail set at committal might have been larger than that set earlier.

In the case of Hamilton de Tatham, referred to by Joe Chetcuti above, "Bail to the total amount of £400" was accepted initially (on 22 April 1891) but at committal it was to be "two sureties of £250 each, and the defendant's own recognizance in £500" (on 29 April 1891):
http://www.saxonlodge.net/getperson....46&tree=Tatham

Bail after committal is academic to the point in question that being when did Tumbety get bail if as it is suggested he did before his committal.

Looking at other cases I dont think is going to help in determining if and when Tumbelty got bail.

There are only two options the first being on the 7th which is highly unlikley given the facts that sureties had to be found and then investigated as being suitable and acceptable. As I have highlighted previous a process that took anytime up to 48 hours. In the interim period Tumbley would have had to have been remanded in custody. So in any event that gets him off the streets when Kelly was murdered. As and when and if he came up with the sureties he could have been given bail officially by the visiting magistrate to Clerkenwell

Or as I have suggested from the outset the magistrate did not even consider giving him bail before committal, which has been documented as being an accepted pratice with committals for misdemeanour offences.

[Chris]

Thanks to Trevor Marriott for his constructive response to my post above.

There are clearly some uncertainties about what bail arrangements would have been recorded in the calendar. Maybe some light could be shed on that by looking at some of the other entries in the calendar, in conjunction with newspaper reports.

2) How do we know that, if Tumblety was released on surety on 7 November 1888, the person or persons providing sureties on that occasion remained willing to do so on 14 November 1888?

In relation to this question, I do think we need to consider the possibility that the amount of bail set at committal might have been larger than that set earlier.

In the case of Hamilton de Tatham, referred to by Joe Chetcuti above, "Bail to the total amount of £400" was accepted initially (on 22 April 1891) but at committal it was to be "two sureties of £250 each, and the defendant's own recognizance in £500" (on 29 April 1891):

http://www.saxonlodge.net/getperson.php?personID=I0846&tree=Tatham

[m_w_r]

Do you not think that if tumble ty was bailed on 7th the court would have insisted on sure ties, because in all the other cases quoted sure ties were required.
So if he had been bailed it was a requisite that his sureties were required to attend also to answer bail.There would have been no need to bang him up as u suggest to find sureties when he would have already had them.

Hi Trevor,

1) How do we know that Tumbelty was not released on his own recognisances on 7 November 1888?

2) How do we know that, if Tumblety was released on surety on 7 November 1888, the person or persons providing sureties on that occasion remained willing to do so on 14 November 1888?

Regards,

Mark

[PaulB]

Hello Paul,

Ahh, but then 'newspapers are notoriously unreliable.'

best wishes

Phil

But nevertheless one of the main sources we possess. An prophetic, too, don't you think?