Was Tumblety in Jail during the Kelly Murder?

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Here's something worth bearing in mind.

The Quincy [Illinois] Daily Journal, December 23, 1889–

"Two men of high social standing were arrested by Inspector Abberline today in connection with the unspeakable scandal. They were not brought before the magistrate publicly, but as the inspector was seen in the private room of that official, it is thought the case was tried privately."

Regards,

Simon

[mklhawley]

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?

[ATTACH]14388[/ATTACH]

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon,

"Several lads employed...having given evidence as to the conduct" kind of speaks for itself, especially when he beat the case as you show. If he was under surveilance, the boys would not be giving the evidence AND it most likely would have been a conviction.

Sincerely,
Mike

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mike,

You were referencing Tumblety and using the Hamilton de Tatham case, initiated by the Committee of the Junior United Service Club, to illustrate your point.

The two cases have no bearing on each other. It's pick 'n' mix theorising.

Regards,

Simon

[ChrisGeorge]

Hi All,

Here's something worth bearing in mind.

The Quincy [Illinois] Daily Journal, December 23, 1889–

"Two men of high social standing were arrested by Inspector Abberline today in connection with the unspeakable scandal. They were not brought before the magistrate publicly, but as the inspector was seen in the private room of that official, it is thought the case was tried privately."

Regards,

Simon

Being decorous times, indeed, the authorities would not want to see such cases described in salacious detail in the public prints. Well found, Simon.

Chris

[mklhawley]

Hi Mike,

You were referencing Tumblety and using the Hamilton de Tatham case, initiated by the Committee of the Junior United Service Club, to illustrate your point.

The two cases have no bearing on each other. It's pick 'n' mix theorising.

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon,

My point is how Scotland Yard investigated gross indecency cases at the time, which means it is very relevant. Detectives were not following Tumblety and his young man on August 31, but the detectives most likely received this date from the boy.

Sincerely,
Mike

[mklhawley]

Being decorous times, indeed, the authorities would not want to see such cases described in salacious detail in the public prints. Well found, Simon.

Chris

Don't use such big words Chris. It bothers me to take out my dictionary.

Sincerely,

Mike

[ChrisGeorge]

Don't use such big words Chris. It bothers me to take out my dictionary.

Sincerely,

Mike

Hi Mike

I should hate for you to sprain a muscle by opening the dictionary.

Chris

[Robert]

Joe Chetcuti has this following information to share.



For those who are interested in the Hamilton De Tatham case, here is the sequence of events as was reported in the newspapers.





* On Tuesday April 21, 1891 a warrant for Tatham's arrest was issued, and he was arrested on that same day. (Reynolds Newspaper May 3, 1891.)





* On Wednesday April 22nd, Tatham "was remanded at Marlborough Street Police Court" and "charged on a warrant with gross acts of misbehaviour." (Dundee Courier and Argus, April 23, 1891)





* Also on Wednesday April 22nd, 400 quid of bail was accepted by the police court. (Reynolds Newspaper April 26, 1891)





* Exactly one week later on Wednesday April 29th, Tatham "surrendered to his bail before Mr. Hannay". Hannay then "committed him for trial, allowing bail in two sureties" at 250 quid each. (London Times, April 30, 1891. Page 4 column 6)





* Tatham was found not guilty by a Central Criminal Court jury in early May 1891.





I asked Chris Phillips to check the 1891 court calendar. He has done so and has found the entry for Tatham. There was no mention at all in the court calendar about Tatham being released on bail at any time.





This web link below can be viewed

http://www.saxonlodge.net/getperson.php?personID=I0846&tree=Tatham

As for the April 30, 1891 London Times article, that can be viewed on Post 25 of this thread below:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=291&page=3

[ChrisGeorge]

Thanks, Robert and Joe. Yet another "Dr. T" I see.

Cheers

Chris

[PaulB]

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

Simon,
I didn't say it was 'solely' Trevor's assumption, I said his argument that Tumblety wasn't Jack the Ripper was predicated on that assumption.

[Chris]

[Quoting Joe Chetcuti]
I asked Chris Phillips to check the 1891 court calendar. He has done so and has found the entry for Tatham. There was no mention at all in the court calendar about Tatham being released on bail at any time.

Here is a photo of the relevant entry, from CRIM 9/37. I think it is fair to point out that this entry is evidently based on incomplete information, as the dates of the arrest and committal are also not given. But it does illustrate further the fact that bail arrangements are not necessarily indicated in the calendar.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Joe, Robert and Chris,

Nice job.

Interesting to note that C Division obtained a warrant to arrest Hamilton de Tatham.

As no mention was made on the Old Bailey court calendar of de Tatham's original magistrates bail, has it now become a given that Tumblety was bailed on 7th November?

I also wonder why Tumblety [the friend of Popes and Emperors] couldn't rustle up "a number of persons holding distinguished positions [to give him] an irreproachable character" and instead elected to make a run for it.

Regards,

Simon

[Stephen Thomas]

So was Tumblety banged up when Kelly was killled or wasn't he?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Paul,

Fair enough; I'll remove the word "solely".

What's wrong with Trevor's assumption?

Regards,

Simon

[PaulB]

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

Sorry, Phil, but Littlechild says Tumblety was a "suspect", Marriott says he wasn't Jack the Ripper, but doesn't demonstrate that Tumblety wasn't a suspect. Marriott therefore doesn't counterbalance Littlechild at all. I'm not sure it's a matter of opinion, but a matter of fact.