Was Tumblety in Jail during the Kelly Murder?

[mklhawley]

Hi all,

As promised, this is the first thread of mine dedicated to Trevor's article and argument that Francis Tumblety was in jail during the Kelly murder. I have other points to make, but this one goes to the heart of the matter. Thanks to Trevor’s article which was fine-tuned by Simon, we are much closer to understanding the actual November 1888 events specific to Francis Tumbley’s brush with Marlborough Street Police Court and Central Criminal Court just prior to his escape out of England. Case in point; it is now clear that the November 14th warrant was a ‘Warrant of Committal’ and not an arrest warrant. But this actually reinforces the reality of Francis Tumblety NOT being in custody on November 9th during the Kelly murder as you will see.

For me, it just doesn’t make sense that Sir Robert Anderson would solicit information from Brooklyn’s Chief of Police on Ripper suspect Francis Tumblety in mid-to-late November if he was in custody during the Kelly murder in early November; a murder that Scotland Yard was convinced was committed by the Whitechapel murderer.

The keystone of Trevor’s entire argument is stated on page 39 of his article,
“In the absence of any evidence that Tumblety was granted bail, it may be reasonably concluded that he was remanded in custody for the maximum eight-day period in accordance with the Indictable Offences Act. He was therefore detained between 7 and 14 November 1888 – the period during which the last ‘Ripper’ murder took place at Millers Court on 9 November 1888.”

The section of the Indictable Offences Act Trevor’s article publishes states, “If the investigation before the magistrate cannot be completed at a single hearing, he may from time to time remand the accused to gaol for any period not exceeding eight days…’

Trevor’s claim must then be that Tumblety was in front of the Magistrate, Hannay, on November 7th. My point is that this argument is irrelevant, since Tumblety was not in front of Hannay until November 14th when the case was committed to Central Criminal Court by Hannay’s police court. This would also explain why there was no ‘Bailed at Police Court’, because he was not at Police Court on November 7th but merely received police bail. He was ‘Bailed at the Police Station’, but this would not be on the court calendar, since it did not YET involve the court. According to the Metropolitan Police Act of 1829 and 1839, inspectors or officers in charge of a police station could give police bail PRIOR to involving the Magistrate. The November 7th date of ‘When received into custody’ was placed in the court calendar, because it had a column for this action. Just as the London cable source for the US papers stated, Tumblety was first arrested for being a suspect in the Whitechapel murders –this being prior to November 7th- and then re-arrested on November 7th for gross indecency. Since the police wanted to strengthen their gross indecency case, they gave Tumblety police bail for a week and Tumblety had to show up in front of Hannay on November 14th to hear the case for possible committal to Central Criminal Court. Hannay heard it and in accordance with the Indictable Offenses Act, completed it in a single hearing, believed it was necessary to go to Central Criminal Court, and then committed the case to them. Hannay then remanded Tumblety until he went to Central Criminal Court, allowed bail, and Tumblety was bailed on the 16th.

Now, I could be absolutely wrong about Tumblety not meeting Hannay until November 14th, but actually is doesn’t really matter. Either Tumblety was in jail from the 7th to the 14th or he was released on bail on or about the 7th either by Hannay or by the police.

Do we have any evidence that Tumblety was granted bail on the 7th and released only to be remanded on the 14th receiving a second chance for bail? The answer is actually yes, in the form of police court practice under Hannay himself. Not only this, but it actually occurred with the next case just after Francis Tumblety’s on the court calendar, Henry Ginger. It was a revelation made by Stewart Evans years ago, and then recently rediscovered by ripperologists more experienced than I. Read the following single post by ‘Gideon Fell’, and then reread it:

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=4529&postcount=48

Note that the only bail reported on the court calendar was Gingers second bail! Let me state that again. The only bail reported on the court calendar was his second bail, just like Francis Tumblety!

The point of Trevor’s article is that court evidence and British nineteenth century law made it near impossible for Tumblety to have been on the streets during Mary Kelly’s murder on November 9th. Gideon Fell’s post demonstrates that this was indeed possible. Also, Tumblety being free during the Kelly murder better explains why Sir Robert Anderson requested info from Brooklyn’s top cop later in the month on Tumblety specific to the Whitechapel investigation, why Littlechild believed Tumblety was a likely Whitechapel suspect when he was even privy to Tumblety’s escape (an event AFTER the Kelly murder), and why Tumblety himself in his interview did not exploit an event such as him being in jail during the Kelly murder AND why he stated he was only in custody two or three days. These events now make sense.


Sincerely,
Mike

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mike,

Firstly, I did not fine-tune Trevor's article, so let's lay that particular canard to rest.

Secondly, I did however take the trouble to double-check Trevor's key assertion that a 7-day Police Bail option was not available to FT.

You should too.

Thirdly, it is generally acknowledged that Gideon Fell was/is Stewart Evans.

I'll leave you to work out the rest.

Regards,

Simon

[mklhawley]

Hi Simon,

Fair enough.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Jonathan H]

Tumblety Doesn't Talk ...?

Just to make my counter-point here on this thread ...

Of course Frances Tumblety, Jack the Ripper or not, had the opportunity to kill Mary Kelly.

Being in custody was his perfect out, his perfect way to vilify his pursuers, to get this monkey off his back once and for all.

But he doesn't do it ...?

Instead we have here one of the great primary sources ever found on this subject, discovered by R. J. Palmer in his superb, breakthrough piece 'Tumblety Talks' (in Casebook's Dissertations section, and which should be read with Stewart P. Evans' excellent 'A Slouch-Hatted Yank').

'The New York World', 29 Jan 1889

HE WORE A BIG SLOUCH HAT


' ... The doctor landed in New York on the 3rd of last December, and from the moment that he set foot in New York he was under surveillance. An English detective, whose stupidity was noticeable even among a class not celebrated for their shrewdness, came over especially to shadow him ...

The police long since ceased to take any interest in the case, as it became evident that the English authorities had no evidence to hold the doctor

... I used to go about the city a great deal until every part of it became familiar to me.

... I went down to the Whitechapel district ...

"How long were you in prison?"

"Two or three days ...

"I think their conduct in this Whitechapel affair is enough to show what they are. Why, they stuff themselves all day with potpies and beef and drink gallons of stale beer, keeping it up until they go to bed late at night, and then wake up the next morning heavy as lead. Why, all the English police have dyspepsia. They can't help it. Their heads are as thick as the London fogs. You can't drive an idea through their thick skulls with a hammer. I never saw such a stupid set. Look at their treatment of me. There was absolutely not one single scintilla of evidence against me. I had simply been guilty of wearing a slouch hat, and for that I was charged with a series of the most horrible crimes ever recorded ...'


Instead of laying into the Bobbies for causing him so much grief while being in their custody for the latest atrocity, he has to resort to cliches and bluster, a Duchess' dubious fan-poem, and that he is really a big, big softie.

It just defies all logic?

Interestingly he never claims any alibis for any of the murders.


And then of course we have this:

Jack Littlechild, private letter to George Sims, 23 Sept 1913

' ... I never heard of a Dr D. in connection with the Whitechapel murders but amongst the suspects, and to my mind a very likely one, was a Dr. T. (which sounds much like D.) He was an American quack named Tumblety and was at one time a frequent visitor to London and on these occasions constantly brought under the notice of police, there being a large dossier concerning him at Scotland Yard. Although a 'Sycopathia Sexualis' subject he was not known as a 'Sadist' (which the murderer unquestionably was) but his feelings toward women were remarkable and bitter in the extreme, a fact on record. Tumblety was arrested at the time of the murders in connection with unnatural offences and charged at Marlborough Street, remanded on bail, jumped his bail, and got away to Boulogne. He shortly left Boulogne and was never heard of afterwards. It was believed he committed suicide but certain it is that from this time the 'Ripper' murders came to an end.


Why would this highly regarded [retired] chief still think Dr. Tumbelty was still a likely 'Jack' if on November 9th the American was in a cell at the same moment that Kelly was murdered and mutilated? He would have written him off right then and there, as would all of Scotland Yard -- relieved that they did not have to employ a stupid detective in NYC, let alone send Inspector Walter Andrews on a not-cheap trip to Canada to check on the chief suspect's background.

And we have this:

From 'Scoundrels Scallywags and Some Honest Men', 1929, the ex-Chief Inspector of CID Tom Divall wrote the following:

'The much lamented and late Commissioner of the CID, Sir Melville Macnaghten, received some information that the murderer had gone to America and died in a lunatic asylum there. This perhaps maybe correct, for after this news nothing was ever heard of any similar crimes being committed.'


And we have this:

George Sims from 'Lloyds Weekly'; My Criminal Museum--Who was Jack the Ripper?, Sept 1907:

' ... There are two theories with regard to the identity of the Ripper. One has everything in its favour, and is now generally accepted by the high authorities who had the details of the various investigations gathered together and systematically inquired into ...

... The other theory in support of which I have some curious information, puts the crime down to a young American medical student who was in London during the whole time of the murders ... But against this theory put forward by those who uphold it with remarkable details and some startling evidence in support of their contention, there is this one great fact. The American was alive and well and leading the life of an ordinary citizen long after the Ripper murders came to an end ...'

Those two previous sources, both by Macnaghten-proxies, are bits and pieces of several suspects mashed together -- for sure.

But some kind of top American suspect is nevertheless there, the latter source for public consumption, either as the prime suspect or the very best one after the [alleged] prime suspect (not the Polish Jew or the Russian doctor take note).

It is certainly not saying that the one great fact which mitigates against a dodgy American medico is that he was 'safely caged' at the time of the last murder (as Aaron Kosminski was for Frances Coles).

Because Kelly was not known to be the last murder -- that was initially thought to be Coles over two years later -- until locked in by Griffiths, in 1898, subsequent Whitechapel murders, I think, 'exonerated' Tumblety to people like Anderson and Swanson.

[Trevor Marriott]

Just to make my counter-point here on this thread ...

Of course Frances Tumblety, Jack the Ripper or not, had the opportunity to kill Mary Kelly.

Being in custody was his perfect out, his perfect way to vilify his pursuers, to get this monkey off his back once and for all.

But he doesn't do it ...?

Instead we have here one of the great primary sources ever found on this subject, discovered by R. J. Palmer in his superb, breakthrough piece 'Tumblety Talks' (in Casebook's Dissertations section, and which should be read with Stewart P. Evans' excellent 'A Slouch-Hatted Yank').

'The New York World', 29 Jan 1889

HE WORE A BIG SLOUCH HAT


' ... The doctor landed in New York on the 3rd of last December, and from the moment that he set foot in New York he was under surveillance. An English detective, whose stupidity was noticeable even among a class not celebrated for their shrewdness, came over especially to shadow him ...

The police long since ceased to take any interest in the case, as it became evident that the English authorities had no evidence to hold the doctor

... I used to go about the city a great deal until every part of it became familiar to me.

... I went down to the Whitechapel district ...

"How long were you in prison?"

"Two or three days ...

"I think their conduct in this Whitechapel affair is enough to show what they are. Why, they stuff themselves all day with potpies and beef and drink gallons of stale beer, keeping it up until they go to bed late at night, and then wake up the next morning heavy as lead. Why, all the English police have dyspepsia. They can't help it. Their heads are as thick as the London fogs. You can't drive an idea through their thick skulls with a hammer. I never saw such a stupid set. Look at their treatment of me. There was absolutely not one single scintilla of evidence against me. I had simply been guilty of wearing a slouch hat, and for that I was charged with a series of the most horrible crimes ever recorded ...'


Instead of laying into the Bobbies for causing him so much grief while being in their custody for the latest atrocity, he has to resort to cliches and bluster, a Duchess' dubious fan-poem, and that he is really a big, big softie.

It just defies all logic?

Interestingly he never claims any alibis for any of the murders.


And then of course we have this:

Jack Littlechild, private letter to George Sims, 23 Sept 1913

' ... I never heard of a Dr D. in connection with the Whitechapel murders but amongst the suspects, and to my mind a very likely one, was a Dr. T. (which sounds much like D.) He was an American quack named Tumblety and was at one time a frequent visitor to London and on these occasions constantly brought under the notice of police, there being a large dossier concerning him at Scotland Yard. Although a 'Sycopathia Sexualis' subject he was not known as a 'Sadist' (which the murderer unquestionably was) but his feelings toward women were remarkable and bitter in the extreme, a fact on record. Tumblety was arrested at the time of the murders in connection with unnatural offences and charged at Marlborough Street, remanded on bail, jumped his bail, and got away to Boulogne. He shortly left Boulogne and was never heard of afterwards. It was believed he committed suicide but certain it is that from this time the 'Ripper' murders came to an end.


Why would this highly regarded [retired] chief still think Dr. Tumbelty was still a likely 'Jack' if on November 9th the American was in a cell at the same moment that Kelly was murdered and mutilated? He would have written him off right then and there, as would all of Scotland Yard -- relieved that they did not have to employ a stupid detective in NYC, let alone send Inspector Walter Andrews on a not-cheap trip to Canada to check on the chief suspect's background.

And we have this:

From 'Scoundrels Scallywags and Some Honest Men', 1929, the ex-Chief Inspector of CID Tom Divall wrote the following:

'The much lamented and late Commissioner of the CID, Sir Melville Macnaghten, received some information that the murderer had gone to America and died in a lunatic asylum there. This perhaps maybe correct, for after this news nothing was ever heard of any similar crimes being committed.'


And we have this:

George Sims from 'Lloyds Weekly'; My Criminal Museum--Who was Jack the Ripper?, Sept 1907:

' ... There are two theories with regard to the identity of the Ripper. One has everything in its favour, and is now generally accepted by the high authorities who had the details of the various investigations gathered together and systematically inquired into ...

... The other theory in support of which I have some curious information, puts the crime down to a young American medical student who was in London during the whole time of the murders ... But against this theory put forward by those who uphold it with remarkable details and some startling evidence in support of their contention, there is this one great fact. The American was alive and well and leading the life of an ordinary citizen long after the Ripper murders came to an end ...'

Those two previous sources, both by Macnaghten-proxies, are bits and pieces of several suspects mashed together -- for sure.

But some kind of top American suspect is nevertheless there, the latter source for public consumption, either as the prime suspect or the very best one after the [alleged] prime suspect (not the Polish Jew or the Russian doctor take note).

It is certainly not saying that the one great fact which mitigates against a dodgy American medico is that he was 'safely caged' at the time of the last murder (as Aaron Kosminski was for Frances Coles).

Because Kelly was not known to be the last murder -- that was initially thought to be Coles over two years later -- until locked in by Griffiths, in 1898, subsequent Whitechapel murders, I think, 'exonerated' Tumblety to people like Anderson and Swanson.

A lot of huffing and puffing there Jonathan but the whole matter comes down to facts and the question of what happened to Tumblety following his arrest on Nov 7th and the days thereafter.

Forget about all the clap trap about what Tumblety or anyone else said that only goes to highlight the dangers of relying on secondary reports, misleading opinions and quotes by people who only thought they knew which sadly Ripperology is riddled with.

So to make it plain and simple you provide the evidence to show how Tumblety came to be free following his arrest on Nov 7th and what happened in the days thereafter leading up to him being committed on November 14th and bailed on November 16th ?

Now for him to be bailed on Nov 16th he would have to have been in custody because he was commited on Nov 14th and if he had already been on bail at that time there would have been no need to bail him a second time on Nov 16th.

Furthermore if he had ever been given bail previous as suggested by some and had breached that bail, it is highly unlikley that the authorities would have bailed him a second time.

If he had been given bail on Nov 7th why did he not simply abscond then after all he would have at least had 7 days in which to do so.

[Jonathan H]

To Trevor

Sorry mate, I stand by my 'huffing and puffing'.

Look, we don't have the intricate and specific sources to fill in all the details, just scraps here and there.

Whereas you're writing as if it's 'case closed' on this point, and it's not.

You're advocating a theory.

And you have written a good piece trying to make sense of limited and incomplete data; to create a through-line which a reader can find persuasive, or not.

I do not.

For the reasons already given the theory of Tumblety incarcerated during the Kelly murder does not match other surviving primary sources -- and does not make logical sense, in my opinion.

I actually think you are looking at the whole matter from the wrong end of the telescope; that the other sources prove that Tumblety was free.

On the other hand, maybe you should regard my dissent as reassuring confirmation as I am regularly told here by certain posters -- sometimes politely and sometimes rudely -- that I am wrong about everything.

[lynn cates]

Scotland Yard

Hello Mike, Jonathan.

" . . . if he was in custody during the Kelly murder in early November; a murder that Scotland Yard was convinced was committed by the Whitechapel murderer."

Well, perhaps not all were thus convinced. Let's not forget about the promise of a pardon for an accomplice and the RIC being at Miller's Court telling the press that they might have knowledge about the killing.

Cheers.
LC

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Jonathan

To Trevor

Sorry mate, I stand by my 'huffing and puffing'.

Look, we don't have the intricate and specific sources to fill in all the details, just scraps here and there.

Whereas you're writing as if it's 'case closed' on this point, and it's not.

You're advocating a theory.

And you have written a good piece trying to make sense of limited and incomplete data; to create a through-line which a reader can find persuasive, or not.

I do not.

For the reasons already given the theory of Tumblety incarcerated during the Kelly murder does not match other surviving primary sources -- and does not make logical sense, in my opinion.

And what might those primary sources be ?

I actually think you are looking at the whole matter from the wrong end of the telescope; that the other sources prove that Tumblety was free.

Well I have given you the opportunity of proving me wrong

On the other hand, maybe you should regard my dissent as reassuring confirmation as I am regularly told here by certain posters -- sometimes politely and sometimes rudely -- that I am wrong about everything.

[Harry the Hawker]

Hello Mike, Jonathan.

"and the RIC being at Miller's Court telling the press that they might have knowledge about the killing.

What's the source for this Lynn?

Many thanks!
Harry

[PaulB]

I am regularly told here by certain posters -- sometimes politely and sometimes rudely -- that I am wrong about everything.

Sorry, Jonathan, but you're wrong about that.

[lynn cates]

Echo

Hello Harry. Thought it was in "The Echo." I'll try to find it after work.

Cheers.
LC

[mklhawley]

So to make it plain and simple you provide the evidence to show how Tumblety came to be free following his arrest on Nov 7th and what happened in the days thereafter leading up to him being committed on November 14th and bailed on November 16th ?

Hi Trevor,
You claimed it was near impossible for this to occur and Stewart Evans posted unequivical evidence that it not only happened in 1888 it also happened under Hannay's watch.

Now for him to be bailed on Nov 16th he would have to have been in custody because he was commited on Nov 14th and if he had already been on bail at that time there would have been no need to bail him a second time on Nov 16th.

Not true, because the first bail was imposed by the police and once the Magistrate heard the case, his authority superceded the police's. The need for the second bail was because Hannay put him into custody to await trial at Central Criminal Court.

Furthermore if he had ever been given bail previous as suggested by some and had breached that bail, it is highly unlikley that the authorities would have bailed him a second time.

This was the product of earlier theorizing with very limited evidence. The fact that he did not breach bail does not change Hannay's decision to put Tumblety in custody but allow bail -which was the past practice at that time-.

If he had been given bail on Nov 7th why did he not simply abscond then after all he would have at least had 7 days in which to do so.

This is my point that on November 7th, the police did not present Tumblety with their evidence since they still needed to collect the lion's share of it. They just told him that he was charged. Once Tumblety heard the COMPLETED case on November 14th -in private session- WITH HIS SOLICITOR, he was convinced he was going to lose the case.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mike,

Are you seriously suggesting that the police arrested Tumblety on 7th November [either for the murders of four women or on eight counts of gross indecency and indecent assault] only to tell him to pop back in a week whilst they firmed-up their case?

Tumblety would have been on his bike quicker than a Puffed Wheat shot from a gun.

I suggest you re-read Trevor's article, taking particular account of the two sections concerning arrest with and without a warrant and the fact that neither of these offences was bailable.

As to the mechanics of police bail, the matter appears to be covered succinctly in Trevor's article on Page 38 of Rip 127.

Regards,

Simon

[mklhawley]

Hi Mike,

Are you seriously suggesting that the police arrested Tumblety on 7th November [either for the murders of four women or on eight counts of gross indecency and indecent assault] only to tell him to pop back in a week whilst they firmed-up their case?

Tumblety would have been on his bike quicker than a Puffed Wheat shot from a gun.

I suggest you re-read Trevor's article, taking particular account of the two sections concerning arrest with and without a warrant and the fact that neither of these offences was bailable.

As to the mechanics of police bail, the matter appears to be covered succinctly in Trevor's article on Page 38 of Rip 127.

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon,

I'm absolutely suggesting that, since Tumblety believed they did not have a shred of evidence against him, only to find out on November 14th they did. I also believe he had incentive to try and stay in the London area. He wasn't done...and I'm not even suggesting the Whitechapel murders.

Do you think I'm done with my posting of counter evidence? I have recently studied extensively on arrests with and without warrants. I believe Stewart's revelations need to be discussed extensively first, though.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Trevor’s claim must then be that Tumblety was in front of the Magistrate, Hannay, on November 7th. My point is that this argument is irrelevant, since Tumblety was not in front of Hannay until November 14th when the case was committed to Central Criminal Court by Hannay’s police court. This would also explain why there was no ‘Bailed at Police Court’, because he was not at Police Court on November 7th but merely received police bail. He was ‘Bailed at the Police Station’, but this would not be on the court calendar, since it did not YET involve the court. According to the Metropolitan Police Act of 1829 and 1839, inspectors or officers in charge of a police station could give police bail PRIOR to involving the Magistrate. The November 7th date of ‘When received into custody’ was placed in the court calendar, because it had a column for this action. Just as the London cable source for the US papers stated, Tumblety was first arrested for being a suspect in the Whitechapel murders –this being prior to November 7th- and then re-arrested on November 7th for gross indecency. Since the police wanted to strengthen their gross indecency case, they gave Tumblety police bail for a week and Tumblety had to show up in front of Hannay on November 14th to hear the case for possible committal to Central Criminal Court. Hannay heard it and in accordance with the Indictable Offenses Act, completed it in a single hearing, believed it was necessary to go to Central Criminal Court, and then committed the case to them. Hannay then remanded Tumblety until he went to Central Criminal Court, allowed bail, and Tumblety was bailed on the 16th.

This pretty much sums up what I was thinking. However, Trevor's article has made me, if not change my opinion, at least fix firm doubts in my mind. The problem is that I'm not an expert in British Law and, although Trevor has given us the requisite legal sections to understand his point, this is the Letter of the Law. How, however, was this interpreted by the Victorian police? What, if any, was the wiggle room? Was there absolutely, positively, no way that Tumblety could have been given police bail? Under any circumstances? I don't know the answers to these questions.

Wolf.