Was Tumblety in Jail during the Kelly Murder?

[Trevor Marriott]

Another thing to consider are the words "under ordinary circumstances". Now, if, in the midst of the most serious and extensive murder investigation the country had ever known, you think you might have just arrested Jack the Ripper, would that be an "ordinary circumstance"? The police code was, of course, aimed at constables (and article 4 is specifically stated to be directed at constables) and, while the general principles of the law applied to all officers, I would have thought that a senior officer, of the rank of inspector/detective-inspector or above, would have been given quite a lot of latitude by a magistrate in exercising his discretion as to whether the circumstances in which an arrest was made without a warrant were ordinary or not.

I might remind you that the police could arrest for murder without a warrant so there would be no need to apply the law regarding the arrest for misdemeanors.

But would there be any point in arresting a person without any evidence to justify the arrest, other than to perhaps verify that persons details, and that could perhaps have led to claims of unlawful arrest against the police.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Monty]

Another thing to consider are the words "under ordinary circumstances". Now, if, in the midst of the most serious and extensive murder investigation the country had ever known, you think you might have just arrested Jack the Ripper, would that be an "ordinary circumstance"? The police code was, of course, aimed at constables (and article 4 is specifically stated to be directed at constables) and, while the general principles of the law applied to all officers, I would have thought that a senior officer, of the rank of inspector/detective-inspector or above, would have been given quite a lot of latitude by a magistrate in exercising his discretion as to whether the circumstances in which an arrest was made without a warrant were ordinary or not.

The term 'constable' covered all ranks to Assistant Commissioner, and not solely restricted to the lowest rank of Police Constable. Its confusing as many simply see Constable as purely a rank, when, in fact, it is not. So, technically, an Inspector or DI is a constable as well.

Commissioner was, until the 1974 (or there abouts, I cannot recall precisely) actually a Justice of the Peace. After the 1974, the Commissioner became a sworn constable, and was able to effect an arrest. Today's Met Commissioner, Sir Bernard Bogan-Howe, did just that last year when he arrest a taxi fare dodger.

Monty

[David Orsam]

The term 'constable' covered all ranks to Assistant Commissioner, and not solely restricted to the lowest rank of Police Constable. Its confusing as many simply see Constable as purely a rank, when, in fact, it is not. So, technically, an Inspector or DI is a constable as well.

Thank you for that helpful as ever clarification Monty, but does that not in a strange way actually support the more substantial point I was making? I mean, if the code applied to all ranks then does that not mean an officer had a certain amount of discretion under the code due to the phrase "under ordinary circumstances"? Who would decide if it's "ordinary circumstances" or not? Surely the arresting officer, no? In which case, it's plausible under the 1889 code that someone could be arrested for a misdemeanour without a warrant, despite not being caught in the act (whereas we don't see that same discretion in the 1912 code).

[David Orsam]

I might remind you that the police could arrest for murder without a warrant so there would be no need to apply the law regarding the arrest for misdemeanors.

Thanks but I didn't really need to be reminded of that Trevor. I thought Mike Hawley's point was that Tumblety was originally arrested on suspicion of the Whitechapel murders without a warrant but then discharged and re-arrested again for gross indecency without a warrant. But then you were saying that was not possible. Maybe I have misunderstood, it is all quite complicated.

But would there be any point in arresting a person without any evidence to justify the arrest, other than to perhaps verify that persons details, and that could perhaps have led to claims of unlawful arrest against the police.

In circumstances where the Commissioner had been discussing with the Home Secretary about committing illegal acts to catch the murderer I'm not really sure that in early November 1888 the police would have been too worried about a claim for unlawful arrest if they suspected they had the Ripper.

[Monty]

Thank you for that helpful as ever clarification Monty, but does that not in a strange way actually support the more substantial point I was making? I mean, if the code applied to all ranks then does that not mean an officer had a certain amount of discretion under the code due to the phrase "under ordinary circumstances"? Who would decide if it's "ordinary circumstances" or not? Surely the arresting officer, no? In which case, it's plausible under the 1889 code that someone could be arrested for a misdemeanour without a warrant, despite not being caught in the act (whereas we don't see that same discretion in the 1912 code).

It does support your point.

The key law, which would covered the arresting constables arse was Section 4 of the 1824 Vagrancy Act, aka the sus law, which stated that "every suspected person or reputed thief, frequenting any river, canal, or navigable stream, dock, or basin, or any quay, wharf, or warehouse near or adjoining thereto, or any street, highway, or avenue leading thereto, or any place of public resort, or any avenue leading thereto, or any street, or any highway or any place adjacent to a street or highway; with intent to commit an arrestable offence" shall be deemed a Rogue and a Vagabond, and liable for arrest and, if found guilty, 3 months imprisonment.

In other words, if a constable had reasonable suspicion of a person, irrelevant if the criminal act had been, or the constable suspected was about to be committed, he had the power to stop, search and, with valid reason, arrest.

The sus law was, essentially, the law which covered grey areas, and because of that it was the most commonly cited law by arresting officers, and the most abused. Its became notorious in the 1970s and 1980s due to its use in regards to the harassment of young black men in the inner cities, which lead to the riots at Brixton and Toxteth, to name just two.

It was repealed in the early 80s.

Monty

[jmenges]

Thanks for these most recent contributions, Monty. Extremely interesting.


JM

[Monty]

Cheers Jon,

However that last post of mine was written in the wee small hours, apologies for its state.

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

It does support your point.

The key law, which would covered the arresting constables arse was Section 4 of the 1824 Vagrancy Act, aka the sus law, which stated that "every suspected person or reputed thief, frequenting any river, canal, or navigable stream, dock, or basin, or any quay, wharf, or warehouse near or adjoining thereto, or any street, highway, or avenue leading thereto, or any place of public resort, or any avenue leading thereto, or any street, or any highway or any place adjacent to a street or highway; with intent to commit an arrestable offence" shall be deemed a Rogue and a Vagabond, and liable for arrest and, if found guilty, 3 months imprisonment.

In other words, if a constable had reasonable suspicion of a person, irrelevant if the criminal act had been, or the constable suspected was about to be committed, he had the power to stop, search and, with valid reason, arrest.

The sus law was, essentially, the law which covered grey areas, and because of that it was the most commonly cited law by arresting officers, and the most abused. Its became notorious in the 1970s and 1980s due to its use in regards to the harassment of young black men in the inner cities, which lead to the riots at Brixton and Toxteth, to name just two.

It was repealed in the early 80s.

Monty

Emphasis on valid reason and of course any person so arrested would be taken to a police station and not interviewed but simply charged and detained for court if the circumstances surrounding the arrest were justified other wise that person would be released.

[Trevor Marriott]

Thanks but I didn't really need to be reminded of that Trevor. I thought Mike Hawley's point was that Tumblety was originally arrested on suspicion of the Whitechapel murders without a warrant but then discharged and re-arrested again for gross indecency without a warrant. But then you were saying that was not possible. Maybe I have misunderstood, it is all quite complicated.



In circumstances where the Commissioner had been discussing with the Home Secretary about committing illegal acts to catch the murderer I'm not really sure that in early November 1888 the police would have been too worried about a claim for unlawful arrest if they suspected they had the Ripper.

I think this whole issue of trying to suggest Tumbely could have been arrested on Nov 7th for anything else other than the Gross Indecency offences needs to be put in a different perspective because there a some here who seem to be clutching at straws in an attempt to suggest otherwise.

Playing devils advocate here the first question is

When and how did Tumblety become a suspect for the ripper murders ? The answer is no one knows.But there are pointers as to show whether he ever was a suspect.

Lets look at the murders in line with what we know of Tumblety and his movements. Firstly his movements and the police surveillance.

The police surveillance started sometime in July and went through to at least Nov 2nd. His first offence and charge of Gross Indeceny was committed on 27th July

Tabram murdered Aug 7th

We know that Nicholls was killed on Aug 31. and we know that he was charged with an offence relating to that date so could there have been any suspicion on him up until then -NO If there had have been the police would have acted. Or they would have paid him greater attention in perhaps trying to catch him red handed.

The next murder was Chapman Sept 7th and the double event on Sept 30th
Any suspicion on him between Aug 31st and Sept 30th NO

If there had have been any suspicion on him for any of the aforementioned murders he could have been arrested because the police knew where he was to be found, and besides if they had him under surveillance they would be aware of where he was at the material times.

The next offence he commits is Oct 14th and the last offence Nov 2nd.It is after this offence I suggest they made the application to a magistrate for a warrant. which they executed on Nov 7th

So we have several big times gaps between the last murders where the police were watching him and had every opportunity to arrest him for the murders again they knew where he was they didn't arrest

So therefore any suspicion could only have occurred between Nov 2-7th and that doesn't seem feasible having regards to all of the above taken in proper context and disregarding this ridiculous smoke screen about him being arrested for being a vagrant etc etc.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Batman]

When and how did Tumblety become a suspect for the ripper murders ? The answer is no one knows.But there are pointers as to show whether he ever was a suspect.

Salt Lake Herold on November 21, 1888.

During the murders Pinkerton was in London.

The Chicago Daily Inter Ocean 20 November, 1888. More of Pinkerton on JtR and Tumblety.

[Trevor Marriott]

Salt Lake Herold on November 21, 1888.

During the murders Pinkerton was in London.

The Chicago Daily Inter Ocean 20 November, 1888. More of Pinkerton on JtR and Tumblety.

At the time of the murders dear boy, not after, and you like Mike Hawley seek to use unreliable secondary sources i.e newspapers

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Batman]

During the Whitechapel murders Pinkerton was in London. Meaning at the time. Meaning he was there when the murders were happening. He is recounting what he learned.

Pinkerton isn't just a witness to this. He is an 'expert' witness because of his function.

[Trevor Marriott]

During the Whitechapel murders Pinkerton was in London. Meaning at the time. Meaning he was there when the murders were happening. He is recounting what he learned.

Pinkerton isn't just a witness to this. He is an 'expert' witness because of his function.

Hearsay !

[Batman]

Speaking from a scientific perspective, I am all for skepticism and exceptional evidence for exceptional claims.

If a historian chooses to do this, then fine and usually we can have a much larger degree of confidence in that type of strong inferences made through exceptional evidence.

While some of history can be subject to the scientific method, much of it can't be and we do have to parse claims that are true from claims that are false using variously methods.

Trevor, if you select for the type of evidence that is exceptional (v.good) then we are really talking about witnesses (including expert ones) presenting facts (hard evidence) at inquests which would also reference the files such as case files in the appendix or something like it. The inquest findings itself also become a reference and police files open for legal teams.

Then we have the media and this is usually under more scrutiny than private views.

In the case of Pinkerton you are claiming Hearsay because it only appears in this news article. We don't have an inquest or police files corroborating such. Okay. However that means in your worldview you don't accept media reports without the type of corroborating inquest/police records I am talking about. Fine, but that philosophy needs to be global in your entire view of this case or else one runs into problems with hypocrisy. Do you not agree?

I think this is one of the main objections people seem to have here. That you are proposing a type of evidence of the stronger inference type, but people are pointing out that you seem to drop this line of reasoning when it comes to other suspects of interest to you. Is this case? Have you used media reports (without corroborating evidence as per above) to make an inference about a suspect?

[Trevor Marriott]

Speaking from a scientific perspective, I am all for skepticism and exceptional evidence for exceptional claims.

If a historian chooses to do this, then fine and usually we can have a much larger degree of confidence in that type of strong inferences made through exceptional evidence.

While some of history can be subject to the scientific method, much of it can't be and we do have to parse claims that are true from claims that are false using variously methods.

Trevor, if you select for the type of evidence that is exceptional (v.good) then we are really talking about witnesses (including expert ones) presenting facts (hard evidence) at inquests which would also reference the files such as case files in the appendix or something like it. The inquest findings itself also become a reference and police files open for legal teams.

Then we have the media and this is usually under more scrutiny than private views.

In the case of Pinkerton you are claiming Hearsay because it only appears in this news article. We don't have an inquest or police files corroborating such. Okay. However that means in your worldview you don't accept media reports without the type of corroborating inquest/police records I am talking about. Fine, but that philosophy needs to be global in your entire view of this case or else one runs into problems with hypocrisy. Do you not agree?

I think this is one of the main objections people seem to have here. That you are proposing a type of evidence of the stronger inference type, but people are pointing out that you seem to drop this line of reasoning when it comes to other suspects of interest to you. Is this case? Have you used media reports (without corroborating evidence as per above) to make an inference about a suspect?

But lets get back to you original point if we cant prove Tumblety was a police suspect at the time (on or about Nov 7th) not Nov 20th or Dec 12th what reliability can be placed from newspapers or other correspondents thereafter?