Was Tumblety in Jail during the Kelly Murder?

[Chris]

If he had have been bailed before there would have been no need to remand him from 14th-16th bail would have been extended.

So you keep saying, but the fact remains that it happened in Ginger's case, so what you are claiming is incorrect.

One obvious possibility is that the amount of bail was increased at committal, and that this is what caused the delay.

[PaulB]

Hi Paul,

All I know is that Tumblety used the term "charged" [formally accused] which, according to his own narrative, appears to have been based solely on the consequences of an unwise choice in millinery.

Regards,

Simon

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....

[Trevor Marriott]

Whatever gives you the idea that I think bail was automatic? I have suggested no such thing.

What I am pointing out is that the case of Ginger shows that it was possible for a man to be bailed before committal, then to be granted bail at committal, but not actually to be bailed until a later date.

So the fact that Tumblety was not bailed until two days after committal is no indication that he had not also been bailed before committal.

that's your opinion which you are quite entitled to give

If he had have been bailed before there would have been no need to remand him from 14th-16th bail would have been extended.
I say again having regard to the due process of the law snd the facts as now know against the dissemination of what has been accepted the balance of probability is that he was in custody until after his committal

[Chris]

What you seem to not be able to comprehend is that bail was not automatic and each case before a magistrate was different and the question of bail was judge on its merits.

Whatever gives you the idea that I think bail was automatic? I have suggested no such thing.

What I am pointing out is that the case of Ginger shows that it was possible for a man to be bailed before committal, then to be granted bail at committal, but not actually to be bailed until a later date.

So the fact that Tumblety was not bailed until two days after committal is no indication that he had not also been bailed before committal.

[Trevor Marriott]

I didn't ignore this argument. I referred you to the case of Henry George Ginger, who was bailed before committal and was again granted bail at committal (15 November), but who was not actually bailed until the following day (16 November).

So evidently it was possible for someone to be bailed before committal, then to have bail granted at committal, but not actually to be bailed until after committal. A day later, in Ginger's case.

I am not disputing that in some cases bail was granted before committal,however it would never have been granted without a reconizance and sureties as the posted examples show.
What you seem to not be able to comprehend is that bail was not automatic and each case before a magistrate was different and the question of bail was judge on its merits. Before granting any bail a specific criteria had to be satisfied.
Tumblety was a high risk candidate for doing the ofski
I suggest after reading this you read my previous post regarding bail and sureties again.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Chris,

Tumblety was up on charges of gross indecency and indecent assault.

Henry George Ginger was up for illegally obtaining £1. 10s 8d.

Why should the legal circumstances of the two cases bear any comparison?

Regards,

Simon

[Beowulf]

Hi Robert,

If you were to read the Tumblety bail-jumping episode in a detective novel entitled "The Mystery of Cabin 13" in which an imposing six-foot-two "Ripper" suspect with a moustache the size of an albatross was not seen by any other passengers during an eight-day transatlantic voyage and who disembarked at New York only to be recognised amongst the crowd of waiting reporters by the New York World, you might be forgiven for thinking that there was a plot afoot.

Regards,

Simon

Lol. Yes, thought this, too. He didn't exactly blend in, did he? Did anybody of the ripper suspects look more a whacko? Really, I'd think he'd be the very one when seen late at night the girls would yell 'help,police!' for.

[Chris]

I see you like others cherry pick the points you wish to argue but other more pertinent ones you ignore.

For example if Tumbley was not in custody between Nov 7-14th how can it be explained that he was in custody between Nov 14th-16th, and then given bail on the 16th.

If a person had been on bail and has not breached that bail it is normal practice to simply extend bail. Not to remand someone in custody for two days and then grant bail.

I didn't ignore this argument. I referred you to the case of Henry George Ginger, who was bailed before committal and was again granted bail at committal (15 November), but who was not actually bailed until the following day (16 November).

So evidently it was possible for someone to be bailed before committal, then to have bail granted at committal, but not actually to be bailed until after committal. A day later, in Ginger's case.

[Simon Wood]

Bugger! Why didn't I think of that?

[Robert]

He was hiding in the apple barrel, Simon.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Robert,

If you were to read the Tumblety bail-jumping episode in a detective novel entitled "The Mystery of Cabin 13" in which an imposing six-foot-two "Ripper" suspect with a moustache the size of an albatross was not seen by any other passengers during an eight-day transatlantic voyage and who disembarked at New York only to be recognised amongst the crowd of waiting reporters by the New York World, you might be forgiven for thinking that there was a plot afoot.

Regards,

Simon

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

Bit disingenuous. You know perfectly well what happened here: Tumblety was committed for trial, and then (presumably via his representative in the police court, if he had one) requested bail, and the magistrate agreed. The only problem was that Tumblety didn't have two people with him who were equipped to offer sureties on his behalf. So the magistrate said something like, 'Well, you'll have to go to Newgate, as a prisoner committed for trial, until such time as you obtain the sureties.' So Tumblety did go to Newgate, but on 16 November his sureties were found, and he was vailed. So he wasn't remanded in custody for two days - he was remanded in custody until such time as he should obtain his sureties, or until his trial, whichever came first.

So, actually, your first sentence here -



- would seem to begin to tip the balance of probabilities back towards Tumbelty's freedom over the week in question. Bail was accepted at the 14 November hearing, and this may indicate that bail had been accepted on 7 November, since Tumblety had clearly answered to his recognisances by appearing for the 14 November hearing.

I don't need to speak for Chris either, but I would suggest that if you're going to accuse him of malpractice, then I would be very specific and certain of my grounds if I were you.

Regards,

Mark

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.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Paul,

All I know is that Tumblety used the term "charged" [formally accused] which, according to his own narrative, appears to have been based solely on the consequences of an unwise choice in millinery.

Regards,

Simon

[Robert]

New York World, Dec 4th 1888 :

"Francis Tumblety, or Twomblety, who was arrested in London for supposed complicity in the Whitechapel crimes and held under bail for other offenses...."

"Even in the saloons where he often went to drink he was spoken of with loathing and contempt. He must have kept himself very quiet on the La Bretagne, for a number of passengers who were interviewed could not remember having seen any one answering his description. It will be remembered that he fled from London to Paris to escape being prosecuted under the new "Fall of Babylon" act.

Inspector Byrnes was asked what his object in shadowing Twomblety. "I simply wanted to put a tag on him." he replied, "so that we can tell where he is. Of course, he cannot be arrested, for there is no proof in his complicity in the Whitechapel murders, and the crime for which he was under bond in London is not extaditable."

"Do you think he is Jack the Ripper?" the Inspector was asked.

"I don't know anything about it, and therefore I don't care to be quoted. But if they think in London that they may need him, and he turns out to be guilty our men will probably have a good idea where he can be found." "

[PaulB]

According to Tumblety, he was actually charged [formally accused] of multiple murder—not simply suspected because he happened to be wearing a slouch hat.

Interesting. But, Simon, do you really believe it more probable than not that Tumblety used the word "charged" in its full-blown legal sense?