Was Tumblety in Jail during the Kelly Murder?

[mklhawley]

Hi Mike,

Read the newspaper report you just posted.

Anderson sent a telegram to Superintendent Campbell about Tumblety, saying that "he is accused of indecent assault in London . . ."

Where does Anderson mention anything about the Whitechapel murders?

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon! In the title with both corresponding articles. Notice, though, your suggestion, Assistant Commissioner Anderson, knee deep in the Ripper case, especially with the resignation of his boss, taking the time to solicit information on Tumblety about a lowly London gross indecency case. I thought you believed what Trevor said about a gross indecency investigation prior to November 7, because of the four earlier dates with the four young men. And, he (not one of his detectives) rushes to get anything from the United States?

Keep in mind, to satisfy the elements of a gross indecency charge, one must prove gross indecency with the person... in London! Nothing in the United States could satisfy the elements of the charge, so why would the man in charge of the Ripper case even involve himself if it was only for gross indecency. It's against British Law to give Tumblety a sentence greater than the maximum sentence of 1 or 2 years specific to gross indecency.

No, the beginning of both articles explains exactly why he was soliciting information. The phrase you refer to is absolutely correct, "he is accused of indecent assault in London . . .", but just as the reports AND Littlechild stated, he was accused of this in order to hold him.

Sorry, Simon. It makes no sense for the Assistant Commissioner to involve himself for a nobody on a nobody charge. ...unless he was the hottest Ripper suspect at the time.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mike,

Read the newspaper report you just posted.

Anderson sent a telegram to Superintendent Campbell about Tumblety, saying that "he is accused of indecent assault in London . . ."

Where does Anderson mention anything about the Whitechapel murders?

Regards,

Simon

[mklhawley]

Ok for the final time let go through the facts again and you produce facts and evidence to the contrary. Lets cut the crap about what you think or what you believe because clearly you are not au fait with court procedures with regards to the granting of bail

Let me rephrase this to fit reality: "Let's cherry pick any facts that fit my biased opinion and ignore others."

1. Tumblety was arrested on Nov 7 and charged with Gross indecency
offences

Which conforms to Tumblety first being arrested on suspicion, although the New York World reporter had no idea who he was (just an American named 'Kumblety')

The following comes from the highly respected Boston Herald London correspondent, Arthur Warren:

The Boston Herald, November 25, 1888., A WHITECHAPEL SUSPECT.

Dr. Tumblety, Once a Banisher of Pimples in Boston.

One of the Whitechapel murder suspects is a curious character known as Dr. Tumblety... , When the London police arrested him the other day on suspicion of being the murderer he said that he belonged in New York. The police found that they could not get enough evidence against him to hold him for trial, but they succeeded getting some sort of a charge sufficient to hold him under one of the special laws passed after the “modern Babylon” exposures, which created so much excitement a couple of years ago. The doctor’s identity was for a time concealed after his arrest, but the police, who took the liberty of hunting up his lodgings and ransacking his private effects, discovered easily who he was, and they say that he has been in the habit of making two trips yearly to this side of the water...


Notice how they gross indecency attempt was AFTER Tumblety's initial arrest on suspicion.

2. The dates of the charges brought against him suggest that the police had
him or some specific male brothel under surveillance from June of that
year.

Nothing of the sort. Those dates could have easily been collected once they wanted to make the gross indecency charges stick, which was post November 7, 1888. It makes sense, or they would have put him up in front of Hannay then to be transferred to Central Criminal Court. This did not happen until November 14. Sorry.

3. One of those charges related to an offence committed on Aug 31st the day
of the Nicholls murder

As some young male prostitute claimed, and you believe it. But, who cares. Tumblety could have easily enjoyed one of his vices before completing his nasty agenda.

4. Having been arrested he would have been detained to appear at the next
available court because the warrant states this was the procedure.

5. The Gross indecency offences could not be tried at a magistrates court so
unless the police were ready to proceed with a committal on the day he
appeared the case would have had to have been adjourned.

6. Clearly that happened and the committal date was set for Nov 14, 7 days
later which was the accepted remand period.

7. The question of bail would have then arisen. Bail was not automatically
granted the magistrate would have had to have heard from both the police
and Tumblety with regard to this.

9. As has been put forward bail was not automatically granted before
committal for misdemeanors, however as as has been mentioned there
were exceptions to that rule.

10 So what grounds would the police put forward to object to bail in his case.
Grounds which would not have applied to a UK citizen with a fixed address
etc. (grounds which are still used today when courts are considering
the granting of bail)

Chris and Dave has already explained how Tumblety not arrested on November 9 still conforms to British Law. Sorry.

8. Given the fact that Tumblety may not have had time to organize himself a
lawyer between arrest and his appearance he would have been slightly
disadvantaged

You start this by saying 'facts'. How is this a 'fact'?

11. The seriousness of the offence. Max 2 years in prison confirms this

Was he a UK citizen? NO

Did he have a fixed and permanent address ? NO

Was he likely to abscond to avoid trial and punishment? YES

Could he provide sureties at that specific time should the court consider
granting bail. The answer to that is NO see below

"In suspicious cases twenty-four hours', and sometimes forty-eight hours' notice of bail is usually required; when the bail appears, whether such notice has been given or not, the justice or prosecutor, or any other professional person on his behalf, may examine them on oath as to their sufficiency.
“It is the duty of justices to ascertain the sufficiency of the bail who tenders themselves on behalf of the accused . . .”

The fact that Hannay assigned Tumblety the exact same bail he assigned suspects in other gross indecency cases in 1888, demonstrates how wrong you are. It was an automatic, 300 pounds. Sorry.




The rest of your points are the same cherry picking biased claptrap:

The Standard-Union, November 23, 1888,

…the London Police are evidently doing their level best to fasten the Whitechapel murders upon Dr. F. T. Tumblety.

Today Police Superintendent Campbell received a telegram from Assistant Police Commissioner Anderson, acting Chief since the resignation of Police Commissioner Warren, in reference to Tumblety. Mr. Anderson wants some information as to his life in Brooklyn, and says he is accused of indecent assault in London, where some say he was known as “Brooklyn’s Beauty.” Chief Campbell has investigated, and will send a complete report by mail. He says he was born in Sherbrooke, Canada, of Irish parents, but professes to be a Southerner. He was last seen here about eighteen months ago. The Chief is also looking for a pamphlet that Tumblety prepared, and which purported to be a history of himself.”


Sorry Trevor, your house of biased cards falls apart. Assistant Commissioner Anderson personally involved himself in Francis Tumblety specific to the Ripper investigation POST Kelly murder. To do this if Tumblety was in jail at the time would have been ridiculous.

[Trevor Marriott]

I really don't think that's fair comment at all - not only because the procedural issues have not been explained to me many times (although you have posted to others in this thread) but I believe I have grasped them perfectly well.



Even Simon Wood has (very fairly) accepted that Tumblety cannot possibly have fled as of 20 November because there is no way in such circumstances that his bail would have been respited and his hearing adjourned to 10 December. Indeed, such an idea is ludicrous.



The first problem I see is that this is a 1907 book and is not dealing with procedure in 1888 despite the reference that you have included to the pre 1899 summary jurisdiction acts. The second problem was identified by Chris in a post in another thread which I will re-post:

"The problem is that we know from other cases that bail could be given for these offences before committal, that the amount of bail could be increased at committal (which of course could cause a delay in finding sureties) and that the bail arrangements were not always recorded in the calendar. One such example, the case of Hamilton de Tatham, is described by Joe Chetcuti in the current Ripperologist (and was discussed on this thread in 2012)."

Your response to Chris then was "Yes you are right, but each case which warranted the consideration of bail was judged on its merits". You then added that "Tumbelty would have been looked upon as a high risk for absconding, as against a UK citizen who had a fixed address and perhaps family connections" but that is supposition on your part. I agree that each case would have been judged on its own merits, the magistrate would have listened to the arguments of Tumblety's legal representatives and those of the Crown and come to a decision on the merits which we cannot second guess without any knowledge of those arguments more than 125 years later.



In fact, you have not dealt with the other examples at all in this whole thread and, other than the point that Tumblety was not a UK citizen, you have not distinguished Tumblety's case from theirs. And despite being a foreigner we know that Tumblety WAS granted bail on 16 November.



I'm not huffing and puffing, I just want to know what the answer is - I have an open mind - and if you are right I'm perfectly happy to accept that but you haven't yet managed to convince me. You also haven't convinced me at all that because Tumblety committed an offence at some point on 31 August he could not have committed another offence at 3:30am on that same day but that's not the point at issue here.

Ok for the final time let go through the facts again and you produce facts and evidence to the contrary. Lets cut the crap about what you think or what you believe because clearly you are not au fait with court procedures with regards to the granting of bail

1. Tumblety was arrested on Nov 7 and charged with Gross indecency
offences

2. The dates of the charges brought against him suggest that the police had
him or some specific male brothel under surveillance from June of that
year.

3. One of those charges related to an offence committed on Aug 31st the day
of the Nicholls murder

4. Having been arrested he would have been detained to appear at the next
available court because the warrant states this was the procedure.

5. The Gross indecency offences could not be tried at a magistrates court so
unless the police were ready to proceed with a committal on the day he
appeared the case would have had to have been adjourned.

6. Clearly that happened and the committal date was set for Nov 14, 7 days
later which was the accepted remand period.

7. The question of bail would have then arisen. Bail was not automatically
granted the magistrate would have had to have heard from both the police
and Tumblety with regard to this.

8. Given the fact that Tumblety may not have had time to organize himself a
lawyer between arrest and his appearance he would have been slightly
disadvantaged

9. As has been put forward bail was not automatically granted before
committal for misdemeanors, however as as has been mentioned there
were exceptions to that rule.

10 So what grounds would the police put forward to object to bail in his case.
Grounds which would not have applied to a UK citizen with a fixed address
etc. (grounds which are still used today when courts are considering
the granting of bail)

11. The seriousness of the offence. Max 2 years in prison confirms this

Was he a UK citizen? NO

Did he have a fixed and permanent address ? NO

Was he likely to abscond to avoid trial and punishment? YES

Could he provide sureties at that specific time should the court consider
granting bail. The answer to that is NO see below

"In suspicious cases twenty-four hours', and sometimes forty-eight hours' notice of bail is usually required; when the bail appears, whether such notice has been given or not, the justice or prosecutor, or any other professional person on his behalf, may examine them on oath as to their sufficiency.
“It is the duty of justices to ascertain the sufficiency of the bail who tenders themselves on behalf of the accused . . .”

12. So did Tumblety meet the criteria for bail on Nov 7/8th ? Clearly NO

13. He would therefore have been remanded in custody for 7 days for his
committal (Tumblety by his own admission even admits to spending
"several" days in custody) He may well have been told that should he be
able to provide sureties then bail would be re considered, and bail could
be granted by a visiting magistrate anytime thereafter

14. His committal was 7 days later on Nov 14 now the court clearly felt there
was a prima faciae case against him as they committed him for trial.

15. Now having been committed again the issue of bail would have arisen.
In the mean time if he had found his two sureties and produced them at
court on the day of committal then the 48 hours needed to check them
out would have taken the date to Nov 16th when the records show he
was formally bailed.

16. There is no official record to show he was ever bailed before that date

17. The reports of others who were bailed on misdemeanors do not
mention anything about sureties being involved. They were clearly
persons who had a check-able history and antecedents and could provide
a fixed and permanent address

There is no need to muddy the waters discussing what happened thereafter because we know he did abscond sometime after being granted bail on Nov 16. His short taste of prison life whilst on remand was clearly not to his liking and faced with a further 2 years in prison he hot footed it out of this country as fast as he could.

[mklhawley]

Proper inferences can be drawn from what we know about the judicial system and how it worked then which suggests he was in custody.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Proper inferences would require one not to cherry pick but take all of the evidence into account. You must deny the fact that the very first time it was suggest Tumblety was first arrested on suspicion only then to be re-arrested for gross indecency, the New York World London correspondent had no idea it was Francis Tumblety, but an American named 'Kumblety'. You must deny the reality that Assistant Commissioner Anderson solicited US chiefs of police for 'any information (not handwriting samples)' on Ripper suspect Francis Tumblety POST Kelly murder. You must deny the reality that Littlechild's comments corroborate this. You must deny the fact that the nonbiased fact-finding news organization, the Associated Press, corroborated the story. You must deny the fact that Tumblety himself admitted he was in jail only a couple of days, when he could have easily embarrassed Scotland Yard by saying he was in jail when Kelly was murdered.

How funny you no longer say it's impossible for Tumblety to have been free, but now it's 'proper inferences'.

Sorry, those are the facts.

[mklhawley]

Hi David,

The decider in this matter is the fact that in November 1888 there was no seven-day police bail mechanism. And, even had there been, it is unlikely to have been granted to a person suspected of serial murder.

Regards,

Simon

Let me get this right, Trevor claims British Law (his interpretation) completely negates the possibility of Tumblety being free on November 9th because they followed the law to the T, yet you're claiming Scotland Yard would have somehow incarcerated a person without evidence, not following British law to a T. How can you have it both ways?

The reason why they had to let him go is because not only did the NOT have evidence to hold him on the Ripper case (just as the reports stated) they didn't have a solid case on the gross indecency charge. That's why they let him go. If they would have gone up to Hannay on November 7 to request the gross indecency case be sent to Central Criminal Court, they would have lost their chance.

[mklhawley]

Looking at this sensibly now Tumblety would have been regarded as a high risk for absconding So would the court have given him bail on his own recognizance before committal the answer is no.

Wrong. We have other gross indecency cases Hannay saw in 1888, and Tumblety's bail was no different than theirs. This clearly shows Hannay did not consider Tumblety as a flight risk. Why would they think that?

Your argument continues to crumble.

[mklhawley]

Simple logic dictates that Tumblety knew that following his arrest and charges being preferred against him, that should he ever stand trial before a jury and get convicted he would serve a lengthy term of imprisonment. He would have known that from day one once he was charged. By his actions by absconding after Nov 16th, says he had no intention of putting himself in that position. His intent to abscond was formed from day one, but he only had the chance to do so after being bailed.

If he had been bailed as you seem to want to suggest, then why did he not simply abscond between Nov 8th and Nov 14th ? The answer is because he was not able to because he was locked up !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Because between November 8th and the 14th, he (more importantly his lawyer) had no idea how solid the gross indecency case was, but he certainly did when he finally posted bail on the 16th. You must get it through your thick skull, this is the time Scotland Yard tightened the case up, not before. There was no investigation prior to November 7. The dates with the four young men was acquired afterward. No one followed him on those dates.

Tumblety had no intensions of leaving England, so why would he leave until he realized his next step was jail? That's what fits all the facts.

[mklhawley]

Hello David,

On good grounds?

1) no evidence that he ever committed a single murder.

2) no conjectural evidence that he was involved in the murder scene of any of the 5 victims

3) not one line in any official police document mentions the man in relation to the hunt for the murders.

4) we do not know for sure..but the missing (stolen..purloined..misappropriated) suspects file as seen by Paul Bonner ca. 1973 does not mention him either.

Find the person holding THAT file and get them to produce the "over 100 names" and then you can be pretty well sure the grounds are near water tight..All 4 points above combined.


Phil

Phil,

Tell me any of the top suspects that fit your requirements. None. How idiotic to put such requirements on one suspect. We don't have all of the 'official' documents today, so how idiotic to suggest this. Absence of evidence is not evidence for absence. Assistant Commissioner Anderson personally solicited information on Ripper suspect Francis Tumblety POST Kelly murder. Littlechiled's letter confirms this and the Associated Press, a nonbiased newsgathering organization, confirms this. Anderson was quite convinced and the only reason he disregarded Tumblety was because of the POST Ripper victims, such as MacKenzie (Tumblety was in the US at the time). We now know they weren't ripper victims (or maybe you do).

Trevor and Simon must fight tooth and nail that Tumblety could not have been a suspect because they've published as such, and it would be pie in their face if they admit they were wrong. I get how embarrassing it is, but that's their issue.

Sincerely,

Mike

[GUT]

Well I haven't suggested that he didn't commit the murder nor have I suggested that he did. I get interested by things like this procedural point and don't feel I'm wasting my time. I would add, however, that it would be quite wrong to eliminate Tumblety as a suspect on the basis of a flawed claim that he MUST have been in custody on 9 November. By all means eliminate him if you feel you have to, but do so on good grounds.

Yes Yes Yes.

[David Orsam]

The procedural issues have been explained to you many times but you seem not to be able to grasp them.

I really don't think that's fair comment at all - not only because the procedural issues have not been explained to me many times (although you have posted to others in this thread) but I believe I have grasped them perfectly well.

But we don't know for sure that Tumblety did attend on Nov 20 and it has been explained why he may not have.

Even Simon Wood has (very fairly) accepted that Tumblety cannot possibly have fled as of 20 November because there is no way in such circumstances that his bail would have been respited and his hearing adjourned to 10 December. Indeed, such an idea is ludicrous.

But it is academic in the grand scheme of things because it has been explained to you in great detail the procedure the police and the court would have adopted following his arrest on Nov 7th

I post this again

In Summary Jurisdiction Procedure, by Cecil George Douglas [1907], which discusses the 1848 to 1899 summary jurisdiction acts regulating the duties of justices of the peace, the author appends a note regarding 11 & 12 Vict. c. 42, s.21 and the eligibility of bail in cases of misdemeanor.

“Bail Before or After Committal — A distinction appears to be drawn as to the rights of an accused person to bail in cases of misdemeanor before and after committal for trial. The generally received impression appears to be that the right of bail in misdemeanor does not arise until committal for trial.”

The first problem I see is that this is a 1907 book and is not dealing with procedure in 1888 despite the reference that you have included to the pre 1899 summary jurisdiction acts. The second problem was identified by Chris in a post in another thread which I will re-post:

"The problem is that we know from other cases that bail could be given for these offences before committal, that the amount of bail could be increased at committal (which of course could cause a delay in finding sureties) and that the bail arrangements were not always recorded in the calendar. One such example, the case of Hamilton de Tatham, is described by Joe Chetcuti in the current Ripperologist (and was discussed on this thread in 2012)."

Your response to Chris then was "Yes you are right, but each case which warranted the consideration of bail was judged on its merits". You then added that "Tumbelty would have been looked upon as a high risk for absconding, as against a UK citizen who had a fixed address and perhaps family connections" but that is supposition on your part. I agree that each case would have been judged on its own merits, the magistrate would have listened to the arguments of Tumblety's legal representatives and those of the Crown and come to a decision on the merits which we cannot second guess without any knowledge of those arguments more than 125 years later.

There were exceptions but in Tumbletys case he was not one of them for all the reasons previously stated.

In fact, you have not dealt with the other examples at all in this whole thread and, other than the point that Tumblety was not a UK citizen, you have not distinguished Tumblety's case from theirs. And despite being a foreigner we know that Tumblety WAS granted bail on 16 November.

Now you can huff and puff, and argue all you like but it wont change the facts and it wont change the procedures open to the police and the courts in 1888 which put him in custody the night Mary Kelly was murdered, and by reason of the dates of one of his subsequent charges namely August 31st, likely as not rules him out of the Nicholls murder as well

I'm not huffing and puffing, I just want to know what the answer is - I have an open mind - and if you are right I'm perfectly happy to accept that but you haven't yet managed to convince me. You also haven't convinced me at all that because Tumblety committed an offence at some point on 31 August he could not have committed another offence at 3:30am on that same day but that's not the point at issue here.

[Trevor Marriott]

And that's where your post goes wrong. We have no idea what was in Tumblety's mind at the time and we cannot simply refer to "logic". I could give you counter arguments as to why he might have wanted to keep his options open - and, if I were so minded, I could point out that your argument on this point has collapsed now that we know that Tumblety had not fled as of 20 November, four days after being bailed - but there is really no point us going into a debate about what Tumblety might or might not have done while on bail. I'm only really interested in discussing the procedural issues involved and, on that, I feel that we have reached the end of the discussion, at least until any new information emerges.

The procedural issues have been explained to you many times but you seem not to be able to grasp them. But we don't know for sure that Tumblety did attend on Nov 20 and it has been explained why he may not have.

But it is academic in the grand scheme of things because it has been explained to you in great detail the procedure the police and the court would have adopted following his arrest on Nov 7th

I post this again

In Summary Jurisdiction Procedure, by Cecil George Douglas [1907], which discusses the 1848 to 1899 summary jurisdiction acts regulating the duties of justices of the peace, the author appends a note regarding 11 & 12 Vict. c. 42, s.21 and the eligibility of bail in cases of misdemeanor.

“Bail Before or After Committal — A distinction appears to be drawn as to the rights of an accused person to bail in cases of misdemeanor before and after committal for trial. The generally received impression appears to be that the right of bail in misdemeanor does not arise until committal for trial.”


There were exceptions but in Tumbletys case he was not one of them for all the reasons previously stated. Now you can huff and puff, and argue all you like but it wont change the facts and it wont change the procedures open to the police and the courts in 1888 which put him in custody the night Mary Kelly was murdered, and by reason of the dates of one of his subsequent charges namely August 31st, likely as not rules him out of the Nicholls murder as well

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Michael W Richards]

I think that the greatest threat that Tumblety posed to the public at large in London at that time was his participation in what was perceived as deviate behaviour and his relationship to factions that actively sought to overthrow institutions in England and kill innocent bystanders in the process.

Those reasons would likely incite him to flee persecution by the law.

Whether anyone can ever prove he was bailed or not, he is not a good prospect for this Ripper killer of five in the Fall of 1888. Then again, no-one discussed as a Suspect is either.

Cheers

[David Orsam]

Simple logic dictates

And that's where your post goes wrong. We have no idea what was in Tumblety's mind at the time and we cannot simply refer to "logic". I could give you counter arguments as to why he might have wanted to keep his options open - and, if I were so minded, I could point out that your argument on this point has collapsed now that we know that Tumblety had not fled as of 20 November, four days after being bailed - but there is really no point us going into a debate about what Tumblety might or might not have done while on bail. I'm only really interested in discussing the procedural issues involved and, on that, I feel that we have reached the end of the discussion, at least until any new information emerges.

[Trevor Marriott]

Okay Phil that's fine, although no doubt there are 100 counter arguments, but that's not the issue here - I wasn't inviting Simon to give me good grounds now - and this thread will go crazy if we start discussing whether Tumblety was Jack the Ripper or not. This is a thread about whether Tumblety was in jail during the Kelly murder and, in this thread at least, let's just (please) stick to that topic otherwise we'll never get anywhere.

Simple logic dictates that Tumblety knew that following his arrest and charges being preferred against him, that should he ever stand trial before a jury and get convicted he would serve a lengthy term of imprisonment. He would have known that from day one once he was charged. By his actions by absconding after Nov 16th, says he had no intention of putting himself in that position. His intent to abscond was formed from day one, but he only had the chance to do so after being bailed.

If he had been bailed as you seem to want to suggest, then why did he not simply abscond between Nov 8th and Nov 14th ? The answer is because he was not able to because he was locked up !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!