Was Tumblety in Jail during the Kelly Murder?

[Trevor Marriott]

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 What is surprising is that people are still using the term 'canonical' which is surely outdated now.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

I totally disagree with your suggestion. The Canonical five term should have gone many moons ago along with any other mention of five.

Swanson clearly thought Tabram was part of the series and also the murders that followed in 1889 and 1891 were looked upon as ripper victims.

Because of the doubt there is now on who killed who and how many it would be wrong to work with a specific number.

[Rob Clack]

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

Still stiring up trouble? Fine you carry on. Simon and Trevor are adults and can speak for themselves if they have any issues. They don't need you as a mouthpiece.

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.

No it is stupid. Anderson believed Tabram was a victim. Where is your logic now?

Rob

[Rob Clack]

I totally disagree with your suggestion. The Canonical five term should have gone many moons ago along with any other mention of five.

Swanson clearly thought Tabram was part of the series and also the murders that followed in 1889 and 1891 were looked upon as ripper victims.

Because of the doubt there is now on who killed who and how many it would be wrong to work with a specific number.

What you just wrote is basically what I said and you disagreed with it? Re-read what I said and you will find it very close to what you wrote.

Rob

[Trevor Marriott]

What you just wrote is basically what I said and you disagreed with it? Re-read what I said and you will find it very close to what you wrote.

Rob

Mu apologies if i have misread it

I was simply trying to get away from the term 5 whether it be canoniacal five or The Macnaghten Five.

Trevor

[Trevor Marriott]

Phil,




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

Perhaps you would care to define loaded in order that I be given the opportunity to respond ?

[Rob Clack]

Mu apologies if i have misread it

I was simply trying to get away from the term 5 whether it be canoniacal five or The Macnaghten Five.

Trevor

No probem, and I understand your point. The Macnaghten Five is I think an appropriate term in the way it is connected just with Macnaghten's opinion and no one elses.

Rob

[mklhawley]

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?

Trevor,

Just because the dates of the four infractions encompassed the previous months does not mean that there was an ongoing investigation by Froest and Dinnie at those times ready for the Magistrate on November 7th. Once they interviewed one of the boys, it would have been easy to get the names of the other three, interview them, and then pull out dates of infractions for their case in court. Besides, if they got an arrest warrant from Hannay, it would have been annotated on the court calendar. Note what Tim Riordan stated about the situation,

Tumblety was arrested on November 7th on charges of gross indecency. Whether this was for one incident or four, there is no way of knowing. We can assume that he was taken to the Marlborough St. Police Station as this was the court which would later hear the case. He was arrested without a warrant. If there had been a prior warrant, it would have been listed in the Court Calendar.

Having arrested Tumblety without a warrant, the Police had three legal choices. The first was, within 24 hours of his arrest, to bring him before a court of summary jurisdiction. If that were not possible or desirable, it was up to the inspector of police whether to keep the person in custody or release the person on bail. This was not an arbitrary decision but had to be based on whether the alleged crime was “enormous,” and whether the person was a danger to others. If neither of those could be alleged, the person was entitled to bail. This could be as simple as the inspector determining the name of the person and their address. In most cases it was not necessary to put up any money. The person was told when to go to court for the hearing to determine if he should be charged. Based on the charges which are recorded, the police would have had no legal justification for holding Tumblety. Had he been held for over a week on these charges, his lawyer could have sued the police for false imprisonment.

As Stewart Evans contended, the procedure was to have a warrant issued and to have the person rearrested on the same charges prior to the hearing. The police magistrate’s court issued the warrant for Tumblety on November 14th. Tumblety was to return to the police station on that day and surrender his police bail. He would have then been held until the hearing on November 16th. At the hearing, the magistrate found that there was sufficient evidence to prosecute and set a trial date at the Queen’s Bench. At the same time, Tumblety was granted bail on the warrant by which he was arrested.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mike,

"He was arrested without a warrant. If there had been a prior warrant, it would have been listed in the Court Calendar."

¿Que?

Regards,

Simon

[Jonathan H]

I would just amplify that, very broadly speaking, I agree with Trevor that Tumblety's inability to have killed a victim took him right off CID's radar, or any list of likelies.

But that the victim was not Kelly, but rather Alice Mc Kenzie in July 1889.

Tumblety was back in the States, presumably never to return, but 'Jack' had probably struck again (that's how one Yank newspaper certainly reports it).

By the time the same murderer was perceived to have probably struck yet again, eg. Frances Coles in Feb 1891, Tumblety was again essentially out of the frame.

In fact long ago exonerated and largely forgotten, compared to Tom Sadler a sailor 'confronted' by [almost certainly] Lawende who had described a man dressed like a sailor (and similar agitation was probably manifested by police over William Grant in 1895, another sailor suspect, perhaps also confronted by Lawende -- who apparently affirmed).

When in 1898 Macnaghten, seemingly out of the blue, fixed Kelly as the final victim via Griffiths and this became readily accepted by all: Scotland Yard (though not Reid) and the public and the press (eg. Sims), it inadvertently revived Dr. Tumblety as a suspect, at least that is how Littlechild misremembered the affair by 1913.

Especially since Sims was persistently writing about a sucided medico who was about to be arrested as the chief suspect. Jack Littlechild wrote to him to clarify that the prime suspect of 1888 had been arrested -- but he was an American (though the first letters, 'D' and 'T', he concedes are phonic cousins).

Somebody (I wonder who?) told Littlechild, at some point, that the subsequent Whitechapel murders after Kelly were known at the time to be not by the same hand, which is untrue, and that Tumblety was 'believed' to have topped himself after he fled to France -- also untrue.

But having him dead in late 1888 conveniently cemented the subsequent murders as being by others, not Jack the Ripper -- not the mad doctor who took his own life.

[Trevor Marriott]

Mike Mike Mike oh dear

Trevor,

Just because the dates of the four infractions encompassed the previous months does not mean that there was an ongoing investigation by Froest and Dinnie at those times ready for the Magistrate on November 7th. Once they interviewed one of the boys, it would have been easy to get the names of the other three, interview them, and then pull out dates of infractions for their case in court. Besides, if they got an arrest warrant from Hannay, it would have been annotated on the court calendar. Note what Tim Riordan stated about the situation,

You obvioulsy know nothing about police procedures and the evidence gathering process

Tumblety was arrested on November 7th on charges of gross indecency. Whether this was for one incident or four, there is no way of knowing. We can assume that he was taken to the Marlborough St. Police Station as this was the court which would later hear the case. He was arrested without a warrant. If there had been a prior warrant, it would have been listed in the Court Calendar

There was no power of arrest for these offences unless found committing or to prevent a breach of the peace. As there was no offence committed on November 7th it is right to assume that he was arrested on a warrant issued by the magistrates.

Why should it show on the calender. The calender shows he was taken into custody on Nov 7th. No other entries for anyone else show whether they were arrested on a warrant or not.

Why cannot you accept that following his arrest there was due process of the law which followed.This has been fully documented.

It was the law of the land not the law of Evans or Riordan

Having arrested Tumblety without a warrant, the Police had three legal choices. The first was, within 24 hours of his arrest, to bring him before a court of summary jurisdiction. If that were not possible or desirable, it was up to the inspector of police whether to keep the person in custody or release the person on bail. This was not an arbitrary decision but had to be based on whether the alleged crime was “enormous,” and whether the person was a danger to others. If neither of those could be alleged, the person was entitled to bail. This could be as simple as the inspector determining the name of the person and their address. In most cases it was not necessary to put up any money. The person was told when to go to court for the hearing to determine if he should be charged. Based on the charges which are recorded, the police would have had no legal justification for holding Tumblety. Had he been held for over a week on these charges, his lawyer could have sued the police for false imprisonment.

The basis for detaining him has been fully documented I am not going to repeat again

As Stewart Evans contended, the procedure was to have a warrant issued and to have the person rearrested on the same charges prior to the hearing. The police magistrate’s court issued the warrant for Tumblety on November 14th. Tumblety was to return to the police station on that day and surrender his police bail. He would have then been held until the hearing on November 16th. At the hearing, the magistrate found that there was sufficient evidence to prosecute and set a trial date at the Queen’s Bench. At the same time, Tumblety was granted bail on the warrant by which he was arrested.

There was no legsilation in place for Tumblety to be bailed to go back to the police station in 7 days time so therefore there was no legislation giving the police the power to re arrest him for failing to turn up.

I am not going to keep repeating myself because clearly you are not listening and clearly desparate to hold onto Tumblety as you prime suspect.

If Tumblety had been on bail leading up to his committal then on Nov 14th when committed that bail would have been extended.

If he had failed to appear as you suggest a court would not consider granting bail a second time to someone who has breached his bail.
Sincerely,

Mike

[Bridewell]

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'.

With respect, Rob, isn't this a bit of a non-issue? The MacNaghten Five and the Canonical Five are different names for the same group of murders, aren't they? What does it matter what they're called as long as everyone understands which murders are being alluded to?

Regards, Bridewell.

[mklhawley]

There was no power of arrest for these offences unless found committing or to prevent a breach of the peace. As there was no offence committed on November 7th it is right to assume that he was arrested on a warrant issued by the magistrates.

I beg to differ:

[Rob Clack]

With respect, Rob, isn't this a bit of a non-issue? The MacNaghten Five and the Canonical Five are different names for the same group of murders, aren't they? What does it matter what they're called as long as everyone understands which murders are being alluded to?

Regards, Bridewell.

No I don't think so. The Canonical Five is given more importance to five specific victims over the other victims. And it is used in some quarters as a definite statement that Jack the Ripper killed these women only and no others. Where if we use the term The Macnaghten Five, we are saying that Macnaghten believes these five only were murdered by Jack the Ripper.
So I believe the the two names have two different meanings and that's why I think they should differentiated.

regards

Rob

[Phil Carter]

[QUOTE=Rob Clack;233014
No it is stupid. Anderson believed Tabram was a victim. Where is your logic now?

Rob[/QUOTE]

Hello Rob,

MY logic is wrong. Yours is sound.
Here's one fo you.
Insp Abberline, Ass. Comm Anderson, Supt Arnold, Insp Reid, Melville McNagthen, Major Henry Smith, Major Griffiths,Sir Charles Warren, Sir Basil Thomson, Walter Dew, Col Fraser, a few beat policemen, Sims, H L Adam, Forbes Winslow, and Lord knows how many others, when writing memoirs, and or commentating upon or theorising, not ONE of them, not ONE, mentioned Tumblety as a Ripper suspect.

Now. LOGICALLY, do please inform the plebs who know sweet fanny adams about the case and that havent the memory you posess, isnt it rather odd that none of these learned gentlemen either apparently knew nothing about Tumblety as a Ripper suspect, DID know but fos some reason dismissed any serious thought of him, DID know but as he was being followed up by Special Branch COULDNT mention him or just forgot about him?

On the other hand we have ONE, factually wrong opinion by Ch. insp. john Littlechild that in a privtate letter of reply to another who had the ear of MM, that Tumblety did a runner and was presumed drowned, never heard of again (patenty wrong if his colleague Andrews was chasing across North America after him, for whatever reason and was therefore 'heard of again'), in addition to all the American Newspapers bleating his name out left right and centre ( you would imagine that Littlechild had knowledge of these press reports, including quotes by the 'drowned, never heard of again' man himself- telling the world what an innocent man he was...
On top of that lot- there is the question, rightly raised and quoted, about the law and how it actually worked in the LVP. logically, one sees very little to go on. His only known crime in the UK wasNt infaact a crime because he was never found guilty- and any crime he was charged with had sweet fanny adams to do with women, low life Victorian women nor even Low life Whìtechapel Victorian women.

Logic tells you what? That he is a viable suspect after that lot?
Logic tells me that he wasnt, that Littlechild put Sims off any trail by mixing in someone that 25 years after the murders no one knew about- and because it was private correspondance it wouldnt be known anyway.
Littlechild was Secret Squirrel Rob. Secret Squirrel never talk nor write to journalists about what they were REALLY doing. Ever. They won't talk shop. If they feel they have to, it wij be too mixf up to prove useful. Littlechild was telling Sims what he knew Sims wrote about, a variation on the drowned Doctor theory. Because he would have known full well what Sims had written over many years. Note the opening line of direct reference- 'I have never heard of a Dr...
.' that's loaded!

It's logic. And it isnt 'stupid' either. And if you think it shows in your mind disrespect to SPE, let me firmlx assure you it doesnt and isnt intended, as he himself knows. Trevor's work coumterbalances the Littlechild letter, imo. Nothing else shown thusfar in response tips the scales back.
Now lets see if you can manage ONE reply without personal disrespect?

Phil

[mklhawley]

Hi Phil,

Remember, Sir Robert Anderson contacted Brooklyn' Chief of Police requesting information on Tumblety with respect to the Ripper murders. Anderson just didn't say his name publically.

Sincerely,

Mike