Was Tumblety in Jail during the Kelly Murder?

[David Orsam]

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.

[Phil Carter]

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

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

If, as you suggest, Tumblety, at liberty on 9th November, did not commit the Millers Court murder why are we all wasting our time discussing the possibility of him being a Jack the Ripper done-one-done-all-five suspect?

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.

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

If, as you suggest, Tumblety, at liberty on 9th November, did not commit the Millers Court murder why are we all wasting our time discussing the possibility of him being a Jack the Ripper done-one-done-all-five suspect?

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

The idea that on 7/8 November 1888 Tumblety was given seven-days police or magistrate bail, thus making him available for a hot date in Millers Court, defies logic and is just so much horsefeathers.

Well Simon that statement conflates two separate things, (a) the issue of Tumblety's liberty and (b) whether he killed Mary Jane Kelly. It does not follow that him being at liberty on 9 November (if he was), like almost everyone else in England at the time, means that he committed that crime.

Focussing on the issue at hand, I don't see how the notion that Tumblety was bailed on 7/8 November to reappear for a committal hearing on 14 November "defies logic" at all. On the contrary, Trevor accepted that it was possible. If it really defied logic I would have expected you to have demonstrated that.

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

"Ultimately it seems to me that the claim that Tumblety was in custody on 9 November is no more than inference or supposition."

The idea that on 7/8 November 1888 Tumblety was given seven-days police or magistrate bail, thus making him available for a hot date in Millers Court, defies logic and is just so much horsefeathers.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

If Tumblety could have been released on his own recognizance, why did Mr. Hannay insist on two independent sureties totalling £300.00?

Hi Simon - the first thing I have to say about that is that the £300 figure is, I believe, derived from a later, unconfirmed, newspaper report and not from any official contemporary documentation, but invite correction from you if I am wrong. For the purpose of answering your question, however, I will assume that the £300 figure (and the fact that it was from two independent sureties) is correct.

Now, if bail was set at such a high amount as £300 on 14 November then does that not deal with your earlier point as to why it took 48 hours for Tumblety to sort it on that occasion whereas if it had been a much smaller sum on 7 or 8 November he could have arranged it much more quickly?

But to answer your question, I repeat the point I made to Trevor namely that the committing of Tumblety to trial on 14 November was a game changer. Until that point, the police might not have been able to produce the witnesses or evidence to secure a committal and the magistrate might have assessed on 7/8 November that there was not much of a case against Tumblety, thus he released him on his own recognizance (or on bail). By 14 November the police case might now have been so strong that, with Tumblety having been committed to trial at the Central Criminal Court, the magistrate felt that the risk of absconding was that much higher and, perhaps with the police objecting very strongly to bail, set it very high.

Ultimately it seems to me that the claim that Tumblety was in custody on 9 November is no more than inference or supposition. He might have been but he might not have been. There is no general rule on procedure which we can apply here to give us certainty because it all seems to depend on the individual circumstances of the case and we don't have enough information about what happened before the magistrate to say anything conclusively.

In one of your posts yesterday you appear to have accepted that he might have been granted bail on 7/8 November yet suggested it would have taken him so much time to arrange it so that he would not have been released until 10 November. But it seems to me that, once you accept he could have been granted bail at all, the entire case that I have understood you and Trevor to be propounding simply falls away and we are just left with the discrete issue of how long it could have taken Tumblety to arrange sureties for an unknown amount of bail, that is supposing that he wasn't released on his own recognizance, something for which no-one has yet provided any reason why this would not have been possible.

[David Orsam]

Because he was deemed likely to abscond

But I asked you yesterday (in post #527): "the bit about him being "likely to abscond". How do you know that there was any information or evidence before the magistrate to suggest this?" You still haven't answered. So I ask again in a different way. In the absence of any information from the magistrate's court, how can you possibly say that, as at 7/8 November, he was "deemed likely to abscond" by the magistrate?

and on his commital why would they have asked for sureties if he had been on bail and had surrendered to that bail they would have simply extended it

Firstly, that doesn't at all answer my point about him having been released on his own recognizance until 14 November. Why do you keep ignoring it? Secondly, if he had been bailed on 7/8 November the answer is that the bail terms could have been amended after he was committed for trial so that bail could not have simply been extended.

[GUT]

To Gut

Well that would be a string of prostitutes more than Tumblety.

Cheers John

I'm inclined to agree with some reservations.

[John Wheat]

Murder of a string of prostitutes

To Gut

Well that would be a string of prostitutes more than Tumblety.

Cheers John

[GUT]

Hi GUT,

What were you arrested for in 1888?

Regards,

Simon

G'day Simon

Murder of a string of prostitutes

[Simon Wood]

Hi GUT,

What were you arrested for in 1888?

Regards,

Simon

[GUT]

Hi David,

"Tell me why he could not have been released on his own recognizance."

If Tumblety could have been released on his own recognizance, why did Mr. Hannay insist on two independent sureties totalling £300.00?

To answer GUT's question—

In the matter of bail a brown envelope containing 300 smackers was not acceptable to the Court.

Read Trevor's article in Rip 127—

11 & 12 Vict. c. 42, s.23, provides:

‘The usual number of sureties is two; but sometimes only one is required, and sometimes three or more.’

Married women, infants or prisoners in custody, or persons having previously been convicted of infamous crimes, were ineligible as sureties. Persons standing surety had to be upright members of the community who could demonstrate upon oath before a Magistrate or Judge that, in the event of their bailee absconding (they were wholly responsible for his appearance at court), the value of their property, estates or business holdings was sufficient to cover the amount pledged. In the matter of default, payment was ‘to be made and levied of their several goods and chattels, lands and tenements respectively.' Standing surety could not be a cash transaction.

Regards,

Simon

I have a receipt somewhere for a cash bail, I was given it years ago I'll have to find it and try to post a copy.

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

"Tell me why he could not have been released on his own recognizance."

If Tumblety could have been released on his own recognizance, why did Mr. Hannay insist on two independent sureties totalling £300.00?

To answer GUT's question—

In the matter of bail a brown envelope containing 300 smackers was not acceptable to the Court.

Read Trevor's article in Rip 127—

11 & 12 Vict. c. 42, s.23, provides:

‘The usual number of sureties is two; but sometimes only one is required, and sometimes three or more.’

Married women, infants or prisoners in custody, or persons having previously been convicted of infamous crimes, were ineligible as sureties. Persons standing surety had to be upright members of the community who could demonstrate upon oath before a Magistrate or Judge that, in the event of their bailee absconding (they were wholly responsible for his appearance at court), the value of their property, estates or business holdings was sufficient to cover the amount pledged. In the matter of default, payment was ‘to be made and levied of their several goods and chattels, lands and tenements respectively.' Standing surety could not be a cash transaction.

Regards,

Simon

[GUT]

Because he was deemed likely to abscond and on his commital why would they have asked for sureties if he had been on bail and had surrendered to that bail they would have simply extended it

They do and did change bail conditions, sometimes stricter sometimes less strict.