Was Tumblety in Jail during the Kelly Murder?

[mklhawley]

This is really the crucial point, isn't it?

Given the fact that in the entry for Tumblety in the calendar, the only bail mentioned is that on 16th November, can we infer that there could not have been any previous bail - that is, bail between arrest (7th November) and committal (14th November)?

The case of Henry George Ginger, already mentioned by Mike, appears to show that we cannot make that inference. Ginger was received into custody on 14 September, and committed for trial on 15 November after he had "surrendered to his recognizances". When committing him for trial Sir A. Lusk accepted bail, and the calendar says only that he was bailed the following day (16 November).

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

The calendar doesn't mention the fact that Ginger had previously been on bail between September and November. Doesn't it follow that Tumblety could also have previously been bailed (presumably by a magistrate) without it being mentioned in the calendar?

Hi Chris,

This seems to be the key. Trevor states, If Tumblety had been on bail leading up to his committal then on Nov 14th when committed that bail would have been extended.

The Ginger case clearly shows that he was on bail prior to being committed for trail at Central Criminal Court and then Hannay remanded him again allowing him bail -it being a second bail. Hannay just didn't 'extend' the earlier bail.

Sincerely,
Mike

[PaulB]

Mike,
Doesn't Anderson's request to New York for information about Tumblety also correspond with the time when he accepted handwriting samples from Chief Crowley? This perhaps suggests serious efforts being made to gether information following the postponement of Tumblety's Old Bailey trial?

[mklhawley]

[ATTACH]14386[/ATTACH]

[mklhawley]

Mike,
Doesn't Anderson's request to New York for information about Tumblety also correspond with the time when he accepted handwriting samples from Chief Crowley? This perhaps suggests serious efforts being made to gether information following the postponement of Tumblety's Old Bailey trial?

Hi Paul,

I hadn't thought about that, which is entirely possible.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Simon Wood]

Hi Paul,

It was agreed by both Macnaghten and Anderson that Millers Court was the final murder in a series which [according to Macnaghten] began with Polly Nichols. "Now the Whitechapel murderer had 5 victims -- & 5 victims only, -- his murders were . . ." etc. etc. And "The last and most horrible of that maniac's crimes was committed in a house in Miller's Court on the 9th of November."

Five victims, one perpetrator.

Why, suddenly, has the idea that the canonical victims were killed by the same person become solely an assumption on the part of Trevor Marriott?

Regards,

Simon

[Phil Carter]

To Phil

That's the nature of sources and context: the possibility of multiple interpretations when data is scarce and what we have is ambiguous.

Eg. 'Since his incarceration in prison he has boasted of how he had succeded in baffling the police ...'

Meaning that 'since' as in after he was let out of incarceration because he baffled the plods and extricated himself from their clutches -- maybe even offed another unfortunate while he was on the streets again?

Hello Jonathan,

You are of course 100% correct here. The ambiguity is clear. How I interpret it and how Mike does is reliant on our standpoint of course.

With such ambiguity one has to therefore downgrade this 'evidence' given source, etc.
The question one must then ask is how reliable is the information given the mannerin which it is presented?

Best wishes

Phil

[auspirograph]

Mike,
Doesn't Anderson's request to New York for information about Tumblety also correspond with the time when he accepted handwriting samples from Chief Crowley? This perhaps suggests serious efforts being made to gether information following the postponement of Tumblety's Old Bailey trial?

Indeed it does Paul as it also corresponds with an entry, as you know, found in the 1996 A-Z on the Lushington letter to Robert Anderson regarding the Barnett case located by Keith Skinner which is taken as assumption that Scotland Yard did not follow Tumblety to America after he jumped bail as the trip of Inspector Andrews was then set.

November 23rd 1888
Sir
I am directed by the Secretary of State to acquaint you that a copy of your letter of the 19th instant relative to R.I.G. Barnett was on the 20th instant forwarded to the Colonial Office, and that their attention has today been called to the 7th Section of the Fugitive Offenders Act which provides that if not conveyed out of the United Kingdom within one month after his committal, a fugitive may apply to a Superior Court for his discharge; and to the consequent necessity of a speedy decision being arrived at as to the disposal of Barnett.

The Secretary of State has received an imtimation from the Colonial Office that the Canadian Government will at once be asked by telegraph whether they are prepared to guarantee the expenses which would be involved in the conveyance of the fugitive to Canada and which you estimate would amount to £120, and what arrangements they propose to make.

I am at the same time to call your attention to the last paragraph of the instructions issued in February 1882 which provide that steps should not be taken for the issue or execution of a warrant for the apprehension of a Fugitive Offender unless an indemnity has been obtained from the prosecutor, without instructions from the Secretary of State.
I am,
Sir
Your obedient Servant
Godfrey Lushington
R Anderson Esq
CID

So on this comparison Tumblety could possibly be the Whitechapel murderer, for at least the early victims and particularly if Mary Kelly was a copycat regardless of his bail conditions but for Scotland Yard, he simply got away, hence Littlechild's suspicians. Little wonder then Anderson was keen to unofficially promote it as a "definitely ascertained fact" that a Polish Jew was the prime suspect and Jack the Ripper. He even had Swanson believing it.

Perhaps it would be more fitting for Trevor Marriott's talents if he were to first walk before he runs with Tumblety, as Ivor Edwards did with another classic Ripperologist mislead on Tumblety the Patsy. Mr. Marriott might well draw incredible conclusions from the 'evidence' he builds up but first needs to address the issue of Carl Feigenebaum at Sea. He has not eliminated Tumblety as a suspect and his conclusions are erroneous. Why does the editorial team of Ripperologist support such puff pieces whilst diminishing the worth of research which holds no sympathy for the entrenched Anderson view? Why roll out the parade when Kosminiski is on heat walking his dog at a time, it is assured, he was the murderer because he fits the profile of modern forensic thinking and Anderson's supreme source?

Marriott goes on to conclude in this issue, "Reports suggesting that Scotland Yard pursued Tumblety to America on suspicion of being Jack the Ripper are not within the remit of this article. In light of the foregoing, however, they should be treated with the utmost caution."

The foregoing conclusion is very weak indeed as the revelation that Tumblety may have been incarcerated at the time of Mary Kelly's murder does not preclude the very real possibility that Scotland Yard did in fact pursue Jack the Ripper to America, regardless if he was Tumblety or not. In that case, the murderer simply got away with it, sad but true. Scotland Yard also employed detective agencies in the US and it was noted that the Whitechapel murders were of special interest.

Who he was, was much more loaded than Littlechild, Anderson, Macnaghten, Swanson and the Home Secretary could admit, unfortunately.

Indeed Paul, establishing the facts should be of major concern in a study of the Whitechapel murders and thanks again for another fine issue of thought provoking material by your contributors.

[Phil Carter]

I think everyone knows that, but thanks for admitting it on a public board.


And why should they? They never said Tumblety was the Ripper. The argument is whether Tumblety was a suspect or not. He was, along with a lot of other people you will find not mentioned in anybodys writings. Did any of these writing contain a suspects name? Was Druitt named in print by Macnaghten? Was Kosminski by Anderson? no.



That is just a ridiculous paragraph. We have no idea of knowing what was being thought of Tumblety. We do not have all the documentation from the period to make an informed opinion of what was known about him. All we can say is that he was at least known to Special Branch.



There's a lot more to it than that and you know it. Try presenting the full facts about Tumblety and not cherry pick.



What a lot of drivel.



No I was wrong, I admit it wasn't stupid. After this post of yours I have had to change my thinking, and I have come to the conclusion you are talking a load of bollocks.



Probably not considering you started the insults and disrespect first.
Some people are just to stupid top post.

Rob

Oh dear. More personal insults.
Response? You are now on ignore.

[Trevor Marriott]

Indeed it does Paul as it also corresponds with an entry, as you know, found in the 1996 A-Z on the Lushington letter to Robert Anderson regarding the Barnett case located by Keith Skinner which is taken as assumption that Scotland Yard did not follow Tumblety to America after he jumped bail as the trip of Inspector Andrews was then set.

November 23rd 1888
Sir
I am directed by the Secretary of State to acquaint you that a copy of your letter of the 19th instant relative to R.I.G. Barnett was on the 20th instant forwarded to the Colonial Office, and that their attention has today been called to the 7th Section of the Fugitive Offenders Act which provides that if not conveyed out of the United Kingdom within one month after his committal, a fugitive may apply to a Superior Court for his discharge; and to the consequent necessity of a speedy decision being arrived at as to the disposal of Barnett.

The Secretary of State has received an imtimation from the Colonial Office that the Canadian Government will at once be asked by telegraph whether they are prepared to guarantee the expenses which would be involved in the conveyance of the fugitive to Canada and which you estimate would amount to £120, and what arrangements they propose to make.

I am at the same time to call your attention to the last paragraph of the instructions issued in February 1882 which provide that steps should not be taken for the issue or execution of a warrant for the apprehension of a Fugitive Offender unless an indemnity has been obtained from the prosecutor, without instructions from the Secretary of State.
I am,
Sir
Your obedient Servant
Godfrey Lushington
R Anderson Esq
CID

So on this comparison Tumblety could possibly be the Whitechapel murderer, for at least the early victims and particularly if Mary Kelly was a copycat regardless of his bail conditions but for Scotland Yard, he simply got away, hence Littlechild's suspicians. Little wonder then Anderson was keen to unofficially promote it as a "definitely ascertained fact" that a Polish Jew was the prime suspect and Jack the Ripper. He even had Swanson believing it.

Perhaps it would be more fitting for Trevor Marriott's talents if he were to first walk before he runs with Tumblety, as Ivor Edwards did with another classic Ripperologist mislead on Tumblety the Patsy. Mr. Marriott might well draw incredible conclusions from the 'evidence' he builds up but first needs to address the issue of Carl Feigenebaum at Sea. He has not eliminated Tumblety as a suspect and his conclusions are erroneous. Why does the editorial team of Ripperologist support such puff pieces whilst diminishing the worth of research which holds no sympathy for the entrenched Anderson view? Why roll out the parade when Kosminiski is on heat walking his dog at a time, it is assured, he was the murderer because he fits the profile of modern forensic thinking and Anderson's supreme source?

Marriott goes on to conclude in this issue, "Reports suggesting that Scotland Yard pursued Tumblety to America on suspicion of being Jack the Ripper are not within the remit of this article. In light of the foregoing, however, they should be treated with the utmost caution."

The foregoing conclusion is very weak indeed as the revelation that Tumblety may have been incarcerated at the time of Mary Kelly's murder does not preclude the very real possibility that Scotland Yard did in fact pursue Jack the Ripper to America, regardless if he was Tumblety or not. In that case, the murderer simply got away with it, sad but true. Scotland Yard also employed detective agencies in the US and it was noted that the Whitechapel murders were of special interest.

Who he was, was much more loaded than Littlechild, Anderson, Macnaghten, Swanson and the Home Secretary could admit, unfortunately.

Indeed Paul, establishing the facts should be of major concern in a study of the Whitechapel murders and thanks again for another fine issue of thought provoking material by your contributors.

In your haste to apportion the murders of the earlier victims against Tumblety I should remind you that on August 31st 1888 the date of The Mary Nicholls murder. Tumbley was committing one of his acts of gross indececy with a male person, and as likely as not at the time of committing the said offence was under surveillance by the police. As it would appear he was from July to November so if he was a suspect how come he never got arrested during that period of time.

Or was it the case that he was totally innocent of any involvement in any of the murders and yet another sad case of a prime suspect emerging purely on an opinon given by an ageing police officer with no corroboration to suppor that opinion which in itself does not stand up to close scrutiny.

[auspirograph]

Or was it the case that he was totally innocent of any involvement in any of the murders and yet another sad case of a prime suspect emerging purely on an opinon given by an ageing police officer with no corroboration to suppor that opinion which in itself does not stand up to close scrutiny.

The same could be said of Carl Feigenebaum.

[Trevor Marriott]

The same could be said of Carl Feigenebaum.

If you dont agree with the article feel free to come forward with evidence to show Tumblety was free between Nov 7th and Nov 14th

The topic of Feigenbaum is for another thread please stick to the thread content

[mklhawley]

In your haste to apportion the murders of the earlier victims against Tumblety I should remind you that on August 31st 1888 the date of The Mary Nicholls murder. Tumbley was committing one of his acts of gross indececy with a male person, and as likely as not at the time of committing the said offence was under surveillance by the police. As it would appear he was from July to November so if he was a suspect how come he never got arrested during that period of time.

He wasn't under surveillance by the police. Detectives received this date by the boy 'having given evidence' during a later interview just like the following gross indecency case:

[Trevor Marriott]

He wasn't under surveillance by the police. Detectives received this date by the boy 'having given evidence' during a later interview just like the following gross indecency case:

[ATTACH]14387[/ATTACH]

What you have posted is a report of committal proceedings.

Before a case gets to that stage the prisoner would be formally charged. That process invloves the prisoner being given a notice setting out the dates of the offences and the names of the victims.

The purpose of committal proceedings is for the police to satisfy the magistrate that there is a prima facie case to commit to the higher court. That process in some cases one of which you have cited involves the witnesses giving their evidence in person. Other commitals simply involve the witness statements being read to the prisoner and him being invited to comment or make a statement.

In Tumbletys case you can bet your life when he was charged he knew full well excatly what he had been up to and the consequences of his actions.

So he knew he had to make good his escape somehow at the first available opportunity. that being after he was bailed on Nov 16th.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mike,

"He wasn't under surveillance by the police. Detectives received this date by the boy 'having given evidence' during a later interview just like the following gross indecency case."

How do you know that for a fact?



Regards,

Simon

[Phil Carter]

Phil, you've lost me. How, exactly, does Trevor's article counterbalance the Littlechild letter? Littlechild said Tumblety was a suspect, Trevor has sought to demonstrate that Tumblety was in custody when Kelly was murdered, from which, and predicated on his assumption that the canonical victims were killed by the same person, he argues that Tumblety wasn't Jack the Ripper. Littlechild says only that Tumblety was a suspect. Nothing Trevor has written contradicts that. So where is the so-called counterbalance?

Hello Paul,

My sincerest apologies and I will endeavour to shine a guiding light.

To me, up until now, I have had an open mind towards Tumblety. Which I have had since Stewart( and Paul G) wrote their book. After Mr Riordan's book I started to 'waver', but weight of convincing material wasnt there(for me, personally). The Littlechild letter is a heavy piece of evidence in favour of Tumblety as a serious suspect. Whilst not convinced by it, for me, it knocke Druitt and Kosminski down the rung of the ladder. (then)
When considering the three today, and with all respect to Rob and Jonathan and others, their candicacy, to me, has not strengthened, but weakened.
Therefore Trevor's article I consider a responsible piece, and agree with Wolf's views 'Firm doubt'- and this doubt, when weighed up against the strength, in my view, counter balances the weight I afford the Littlechild letter.
Its just my way of looking at things. It isnt yours nor anyone else's- we all conckude difèrently. So I hope my explanation is seen for what it is- a personal opinion based on how I see it.
Whether any agree or disagree is entirely up to them. My opinion matters little but like all I am entitled to it.

Best wishes

Phil