Was Tumblety in Jail during the Kelly Murder?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mike,

I don't imagine for a moment that you're done with trying to make the Tumblety story come true, so could you next remind us all of Stewart's revelations?

Regards,

Simon

[The Good Michael]

Let's say we get irrefutable proof that Tumblety was in jail, a ledger recording prisoner's behavior for each day or some such thing. Will that mean he wasn't JTR? I mean what will it take to get rid of him as a suspect?

Mike

[Simon Wood]

Hi GM,

If we trust in the sacred writings of Sir Robert Anderson and Melville Macnaghten, to be suspected of being Jack the Ripper requires participation in all five murders.

The discovery of, say, a Clerkenwell House of Correction ledger recording Tumblety's behaviour and visitors during the period between 7th and 14th November would not only rule him out as a suspect but also call into question the notion that the murders were the work of a single person—or serial killer, to employ more popular modern parlance.

Regards,

Simon

[mklhawley]

Let's say we get irrefutable proof that Tumblety was in jail, a ledger recording prisoner's behavior for each day or some such thing. Will that mean he wasn't JTR? I mean what will it take to get rid of him as a suspect?

Mike

Hi Mike,

Just as Paul B. had stated this last year, from a historical perspective you cannot discount him because a senior Scotland Yard official stated he was a suspect. I'm just impressed with Trevor, a person with a single-minded focus of finding out who the killer was -'bull in a china shop' syle- actually improved our understanding from a historical perspective.

Sincerely,
Mike

[Michael W Richards]

You know what drives me crazy as a consumer? Cable TV Bundles. You get a little of what you want, some of what you need, and without fail, many things that you would never have ordered as separate services. Ive got channels that are included in my package in languages I dont speak.

Point being.....time to un-bundle the Canonical Group and look at the Whitechapel Murder file as individual murders...a record of murders within a small geographical area that the police did not solve. Some were more heinous than others, some were mere slices or stabs, but no-one has ever provided a serious evidentiary link of the victims of the so called Canonical Group with any one killer. Mad or otherwise.

For me personally I see similarities in murders that were 6-8 months apart. I see standalone victims within the Canonical Group, and I see a darkness that smells of terrorism.

Best regards,

Michael

[Phil Carter]

Hi Mike,

Just as Paul B. had stated this last year, from a historical perspective you cannot discount him because a senior Scotland Yard official stated he was a suspect. I'm just impressed with Trevor, a person with a single-minded focus of finding out who the killer was -'bull in a china shop' syle- actually improved our understanding from a historical perspective.

Sincerely,
Mike

Hello Mike

Trevor's article has been called 'loaded' by some.
From the above I detect that it isn't that in your opinion. After all a loaded article is hardly likely to be helpful in understanding anything from an historical perspective. A loaded article would have bias- which does not help historically, there being the suggestion of intent in the word 'loaded'.

I described Trevor's article as 'responsible'. You believe Trevor has a single minded focus on finding the killer. Anyone that determined to do this would have to examine all known proposed 'serious' suspects. Tumblety included.

To my mind there are two grave doubts.
As Simon suggests, if this man is in line for 4 counts of murder and 8 counts of indecency. The police are hardly likely to let him walk out of the station with a 'do the decent thing old chap, pop back in next week would you?' they wouldnt let Jack the Ripper walk out of the station! And even if they did, they would have followed him like a hawk every day and night INCLUDING 9th November!
Also as Simon writes, Tumblety himself would, if guilty, have got out of England pdq. If he was innocent of the JTR murders, he still would have run like the clappers because of the threat of going to prison for a very long time for 8 counts of indecency.

i think that happened as soon as he got the chance, OUT of custody- and may well have glowed in the near fame of it all back in the USA.

I have the odd feeling that if Tumblety is eliminated from the suspect list, it will not be liked in certain quarters. And I dont mean Tumblety advocates either. Ditto Kosminski. Ditto Druitt. And change is not very attractive. Wolf said it right. Firm doubt. And Wolf is a respected commentator within Ripperology. It was he who, if memory serves, proposed against Trevor's own suspect when hìs book first came out- so Wolf is showing extreme fairness, imho.

That article is responsible. It wont be liked by some because it came from Trevor Marriott, and it somehow threatens the status quo. Thats what I think- not that it matters Mike. No doubt it will get hammered because it comes from 'the likes of' me. lol

best wishes

Phil

[Monty]

Phil,

It wont liked by some because it came from Trevor Marriott, and it somehow threatens the status quo. Thats what I think- not that it matters Mike. No doubt it wij het hammered because it comes from 'the likes of' me. lol

This stirring of yours isnt beneficial. Comment on the thread in hand please.

"The murder of Mary Jane Kelly in Millers Court on 9 November 1888 has been advanced as the last of the five 'Jack the Ripper' murders. All the aforementioned evidence points to Tumblety being held on remand at this crucial time, logic dictates that he could not have been Jack the Ripper."

Trevor Marriott - Doctor at Sea
Ripperologist 127


Loaded.

Monty

[Phil Carter]

Hello Monty,
First of all I DID comment on the thread. I was responding to Mike's words, and Simon's words- BOTH on topic.
Secoundly you and one other call it loaded.
Others dont, Mike Hawley and myself included.Thirdly its a fact that some here cant stand Trevor Marriott and have said so. Anything he does will get turned if possible, and you know it as well as I do.
Fourthly, I will comment in response and say it how I see it. You call it stirring. Well now, thats what its like getting constant reminders of previous comments rammed back on every other posting. You see Monty, 'the likes of Simon, Trevor and me' arent worthy of anything positive.
Nothing personal Monty. Nothing personal at all.

Best wishes

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Phil,

"The murder of Mary Jane Kelly in Millers Court on 9 November 1888 has been advanced as the last of the five 'Jack the Ripper' murders. All the aforementioned evidence points to Tumblety being held on remand at this crucial time, logic dictates that he could not have been Jack the Ripper."

Trevor Marriott - Doctor at Sea
Ripperologist 127


Loaded.

Monty

Hello Monty,

This has already been covered in Simon Wood's posting about JTR being responsible for 5 victims, re Anderson and Co. Take Tumblety away fron the last of the C5, he cant be a C5 killer, i.e. jack the Ripper- the C5 killer.
As Anderson said it was a fact it was a Jew anyway, and McNaugthen favoured a 'drowned' Druitt, what price Tumblety? The C5 killer cant have killed 4, according to them?

Its not loaded. Its logic.

I will say this again. Some think that if Druitt, Kosminski and Tumblety are eliminated from modern Ripperology the genre will die. It wont. It will develop. Which is what some döt want. End of.

Best wishes

Phil

[Monty]

Phil,

You are stirring.

You are trying to inflame and cause an arguement.

Its called flaming and goes against Casebook protocol.

Practise what you preach please.

Monty

[mklhawley]

Hi Phil,

I have absolutely no issues that Trevor's article is convincing to you. For me, Stewart Evans' Ginger post contradicts his conclusion that nineteenth century British law, Central Criminal Court, police court, and police procedures made it virtually impossible that Tumblety was free during the Kelly murder. What Trevor said could not happen, did.

To my mind there are two grave doubts.
As Simon suggests, if this man is in line for 4 counts of murder and 8 counts of indecency. The police are hardly likely to let him walk out of the station with a 'do the decent thing old chap, pop back in next week would you?' they wouldnt let Jack the Ripper walk out of the station! And even if they did, they would have followed him like a hawk every day and night INCLUDING 9th November!
Also as Simon writes, Tumblety himself would, if guilty, have got out of England pdq. If he was innocent of the JTR murders, he still would have run like the clappers because of the threat of going to prison for a very long time for 8 counts of indecency.

Why this does not give me doubts is because on November 7th, he was brought into custody on gross indecency, but it's only an assumption that the 8 counts were already established. Trevor made this assumption. My point is that he only knew he was going to be charged with gross indecency and did not know any details. That happened on the 14th. Also, Tumblety himself in his 1889 interview revealed his confidence that the detectives had nothing on him specific to the murders.

The mistake people have about Tumblety is that he was afraid of his own shadow. This man had the courage to travel anywhere, to any country, and even hang out on the dangerous parts of town with loafers ready for any kind of opportunity to take advantage of him. His hatred for British detectives was almost as bad as his hatred of women (I had to slip that one in ), as evidenced by his interview. With all of his encounters with police and courts throughout the decades, I'm sure he had no fear of these detectives. He had plans and he was not done. ...but of course I could be wrong, but that's why I enjoy researching the guy.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mike,

"What Trevor said could not happen, did."

That's a bold statement.

Using a similarly detailed exposition of LVP law and criminal procedure as Trevor, could you please explain how?

Regards,

Simon

[Phil Carter]

Phil,

Practise what you preach please.

Monty

Hello Monty,

No comment. End of.

best wishes

Phil

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Phil,

I have absolutely no issues that Trevor's article is convincing to you. For me, Stewart Evans' Ginger post contradicts his conclusion that nineteenth century British law, Central Criminal Court, police court, and police procedures made it virtually impossible that Tumblety was free during the Kelly murder. What Trevor said could not happen, did.




Why this does not give me doubts is because on November 7th, he was brought into custody on gross indecency, but it's only an assumption that the 8 counts were already established. Trevor made this assumption. My point is that he only knew he was going to be charged with gross indecency and did not know any details. That happened on the 14th. Also, Tumblety himself in his 1889 interview revealed his confidence that the detectives had nothing on him specific to the murders.

The mistake people have about Tumblety is that he was afraid of his own shadow. This man had the courage to travel anywhere, to any country, and even hang out on the dangerous parts of town with loafers ready for any kind of opportunity to take advantage of him. His hatred for British detectives was almost as bad as his hatred of women (I had to slip that one in ), as evidenced by his interview. With all of his encounters with police and courts throughout the decades, I'm sure he had no fear of these detectives. He had plans and he was not done. ...but of course I could be wrong, but that's why I enjoy researching the guy.

Sincerely,

Mike

They would have to have had sufficient evidence in order to go before a magistrate to obtain an arrest warrant.

That evidence had already been gathered by the police prior to his arrest, who had been carrying out what appeared to have been a long and protracted investigation into the activities of Tumblety between July and November.

Much of the evidence gathered I would suggest was as a result of undercover and survelliance work, which is borne out by the specific dates of the offences for which he was charged.

A decision was then made to finally arrest him.

He would therefore have to have been charged following his arrest on Nov 7th. There were no other options open for the police to consider given all the circumstances which I have fully documented.

So given all of that could he have been in a position to commit any of the murders with the police watching him over that period of time?

[Rob Clack]

Point being.....time to un-bundle the Canonical Group and look at the Whitechapel Murder file as individual murders...a record of murders within a small geographical area that the police did not solve. Some were more heinous than others, some were mere slices or stabs, but no-one has ever provided a serious evidentiary link of the victims of the so called Canonical Group with any one killer. Mad or otherwise.

I think you will find that is what most of us are trying to do, and look at this series of murders on an individual victim bases, and try and determine which victims were murdered by the same hand. It's nothing new and has been going on for years now. What is surprising is that people are still using the term 'canonical' which is surely outdated now. It makes me wonder if people are even keeping up with the latest researches and development's. The correct term to use is 'The Macnaghten five'.
Rob