Tweet
Originally posted by Simon Wood
View Post
-
Nothing is wrong with it. Did I say something was wrong with it? But, of course, if Kelly wasn't killed by the same person who killed the other women then Trevor's argument is flushed. As, indeed, it would be if Tumblety wasn't in custody when Kelly was killed, which many apparently believe he wasn't. -
Hi Paul,
Kelly not being killed by the same person who killed the other women tends to plunge a stake through the whole concept of a serial-killing Jack the Ripper.
Either there was a Jack the Ripper, or there wasn't.
Which is it?
Regards,
SimonNever believe anything until it has been officially denied.Comment
-
Arguably if the same killer was responsible for the murders and mutilations of Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes that might be enough to qualify for serial killer-hood.Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
ChrisChristopher T. George
Organizer, RipperCon #JacktheRipper-#True Crime Conference
just held in Baltimore, April 7-8, 2018.
For information about RipperCon, go to http://rippercon.com/
RipperCon 2018 talks can now be heard at http://www.casebook.org/podcast/Comment
-
Monty
https://forum.casebook.org/core/imag...t/evilgrin.gif
Author of Capturing Jack the Ripper.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/1445621622Comment
-
I don't think we can tell from the information in the calendar whether or not he was bailed before committal.Originally posted by Simon Wood View PostComment
-
I believe the traditionally accepted definition for a serial killer is 3 or more, with a cooling off period between. So even if Stride and Kelly were removed from the equation, there is still a serial killer, and you may as well call him "Jack the Ripper" as currently there is no other name for him.
Let all Oz be agreed;
I need a better class of flying monkeys.Comment
-
Radical thinking Ally,
The 'New' guard suddenly has become the Old guard.
Monty
Monty
https://forum.casebook.org/core/imag...t/evilgrin.gif
Author of Capturing Jack the Ripper.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/1445621622Comment
-
Paper Committals
Hi Trevor,Other commitals simply involve the witness statements being read to the prisoner and him being invited to comment or make a statement.
Nowadays yes, but my understanding is that 'new style', so-called 'paper committals', weren't introduced until the Criminal Justice Act 1967.
Regards, Bridewell.I won't always agree but I'll try not to be disagreeable.Comment
-
I think you will find that in victorian times they did something similarOriginally posted by Bridewell View PostComment
-
Does Kelly not being killed by the same person who killed the other women drive a stake through the whole concept of a serial-killing Jack the Ripper?Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
No.
I don't see the whole concept of a serial killing Jack the Ripper being destroyed if Tabram, who Anderson counted as a Ripper victim, wasn't killed by the same person who killed the other women. I don't see the whole concept of a serial-killing Jack the Ripper of being destroyed if Eddowes wasn't killed by the same person who killed the other women, as Arnold thought.
That one or more of the so-called canonical victims wasn't killed by Jack has been argued since the murders were committed, that they were all killed by different people has even been the subject of whole books, and it is frequently debated on the message boards. It's old hat.
But Trevor hasn't shown that Kelly wasn't killed by a serial killing Jack the Ripper, nor does he claim it, so I'm not sure why it is being discussed. At best he has shown that Tumblety was in custody when Kelly was killed, at worst he's demonstrated no such thing, but what he hasn't shown is that Tumblety wasn't responsible for all the other murders. I don't think for a moment that he was, and the possibility that Tumblety was in custody when Kelly was killed has always weighed heavily against him and was even recognised and addressed by Stewart.Comment
-
[QUOTE=PaulB;233162]Does Kelly not being killed by the same person who killed the other women drive a stake through the whole concept of a serial-killing Jack the Ripper? QUOTE]
In answer to that:
In the current issue of Ripperology is a photograph of Catherine Eddowes. On her right leg is a cut, in very nearly the same place as Mary Kelly had a cut. Similiar size and location.
Could this be a particular' mark that could show both women were likely attacked by the same man?Comment
-
[QUOTE=Beowulf;233204]It could. It couldn't. Who knows? I suspect it may be necessary to have the photographs examined by an expert before an authoritative answer could be given.Originally posted by PaulB View PostComment
-
Apologies if I'm stating the obvious here (or confusing matters) but don't we have an example here of the same police station/force, the same crime, and the same Judge. With exactly what Trevor said couldn't happen, being shown to have happened?Originally posted by Robert View Post
For me, Trevor's article was very well researched and put together, but Joe's research above seems to render the conclusion as incorrect.
DavidGBComment
-
ChrisOriginally posted by Chris View Post
I will reply to your post and also say to all that this will be my final post on this topic.
The RIP article is there for all to see and read, some maybe need to read it again slowly and really digest the contents because clearly by the content and manner of some of the posts they have not done that.
That being said the burning question still is was Tumbetly free between Nov 7-14th? Now I fully accept that this cannot be proved definitivley. However the balance of probability based on the facts and the legal proceedure of the day firmly suggests to me that he was in custody.
The Evans suggestion that he was released on police bail is firmly dead in the water. Another part of this theory is that he could have been given bail by the magistrate at his first appearance on Nov 7th/8th and failed to appear and a warrant was issued for his arrest is also dead in the water.
A number of reports of cases have been shown on here which clearly show that Magistrates did bail persons charged with these type of offences and these have been used by some posters to prop up the court bail theory.
However each case before a magistrate is different and therefore any decision made by a magistrate is made after careful considering all the facts of the case and the antecendents of the prisoner, and of course any represenatations made by the police. So bail was not an automatic option.
Summary Jurisdiction Procedure, by Cecil George Douglas [1907], which discusses the 1848 to 1899 summary jurisdiction acts regulating the duties of justices of the peace, the author appends a note regarding 11 & 12 Vict. c. 42, s.21 and the eligibility of bail in cases of misdemeanour.
“Bail Before or After Committal — A distinction appears to be drawn as to the rights of an accused person to bail in cases of misdemeanor before and after committal for trial. The generally received impression appears to be that the right of bail in misdemeanor does not arise until committal for trial.”
Tumblety`s antecedents were different to some of the accused mentioned in those reports. He was a foreign national with no ties to this country. The offences for which he was charged with carried a lengthy prison sentence and therefore a court would have considered him a high risk to abscond, which of course he did as soon as he was eventually bailed.
I would also refer you to Lord Brampton’s quote regarding the granting of bail. He was senior high court judge at the Old Bailey from 1876-1898
“In coming to a decision many circumstances have to be considered ; among them the general character of the accused, and whether he has a known and fixed place of abode ; for a man of character living in a fixed home would be very unlikely to abscond and forfeit his recognizance. On the other hand, a man arrested whilst committing a serious crime, e.g., a burglary, or a violent breach of the peace, could hardly be left without restraint. So if the crime imputed was in itself one inviting long or serious punishment, e.g., murder, rape, etc., it is unlikely that any Police Officer would under ordinary circumstances take upon himself the responsibility of releasing a man on bail; for few persons could be trusted not to endeavour to evade by flight charges which would (if proved) involve such serious consequences. “
The dates of the offences would have shown the court that he had a high propensity to committ these types of offences. Consideration would also have been given as to whether if bailed he would continue to commit these types of offences. In addittion the protection of the prosecution witnesses would have been a concern to the court and the likelihood that should Tumbley be released, they would likely as not be open to witness intimidation before the commital proceedings were commenced or even concluded.
It is clear that in such cases before a magistrate in the first instance bail would only have been granted with sureties and by the prisoner entering into his own recognizance. If bail was offered by the court but the prisoner could not come up with sureties or be in a position to offer a personal recognizance then that prisoner would remain in custody until his trial or until he could come up with the necessary recognizances or surerites.
This bail issue is now and has always been the deciding factor which tips the scales and now firmly sugggests to me Tumblety was remanded in custody between Nov 7th-14th.
That deciding factor I beleive is plain and simple. The court in the first instance and prior to commital proceedings would have considered Tumbley a highrisk for absconding and would have considered the aformentioned issues and made an intial decsion to remand him in custody pending his committal.
Had Tumbety been bailed by the Magistrate on Nov 7th then recognizances and sureties would have been sought. If that had been the case and Tumblety had to appear in the interim period and failed to do so then those sureties would have been estreated, and as a result Tumbley would never have been given bail a second time. The only time sureties have been mentioned is in The December court calender when it shown that Tumbltey failed to appear and his sureties were estreated.
If he had been bailed on Nov 7th I would have expected him to have been long gone by the 14th.
I must mention that had he been out on bail between Nov 7-14th as some suggest, why was he shown as being bailed on Nov 16th two days after his committal? This to me also goes along way to show that he was in custody on Nov 14th and had been so since his initial court appearance.
As to his viablity as a ripper suspect or a killer of any of the victims, there is not one scrap of evidence to point to him. In fact as has been stated on the date of the Mary Nichols murder he was out committing an offence of gross indeceny against a young male and as likey as not was under police surveilance on that date.
We are left with this situation we have seen many times in Ripperology before whereby Tumblety has become a prime suspect simply on the uncorrobrated opinion of an ageing police officer who only thought he knew, whose account is inaccurate and does not stand up to close scrutiny.Comment
-
Hi all,
One last thought, and I'll stop bugging everyone.
Trevor’s claim is that Tumblety was arrested WITH a warrant on November 7th (gross indecency case completed), which required the police by British nineteenth century law to present Tumblety and the gross indecency case to the police court Magistrate, Hannay, on or about that same day. Since there is no evidence that he received ‘bail at police court’, then he was placed on remand and in custody up to his committal to trial at Central Criminal Court one week later on November 14th in front of Hannay, thus, he was in jail during the Kelly murder. Since he was already in custody, there was only one bail assigned, which he eventually paid on November 16th. In view of this, he could not have been offered bail twice and ‘released on his recognizances’ twice (once before committal to trial and once after). It seems to fit British Law, but then Stewart Evans presented a case that must have fit British Law, since it happened. Evans presented the Ginger case –the next case after Tumblety’s- that Ginger did indeed get released on his recognizances twice; once before committal and once after. Joe Chetcuti presented even a second case demonstrating this. Now, that does not mean Tumblety was released on his recognizances twice, so Trevor’s argument is still viable…but as we now know, it does not mean he wasn’t, either.
The problem with Trevor’s proposal is that, even though it seems to conform to British Law, it does not fit all of the evidence. I am going to propose an alternative series of events that fits both British Law AND additional evidence. Sir Robert Anderson continuing the Tumblety case after the Kelly murder aside, the evidence I would like to focus on is the London World News cable source, which was reported in the San Francisco Chronicle on November 18, 1888:
San Francisco Chronicle, 18 November 1888,
A Heavy Swell Arrested in Whitechapel.
A Score of Prisoners, but No Clew.
[THE NEW YORK WORLD CABLE SERVICE; COPYRIGHTED, 1888 - SPECIAL TO THE CHRONICLE]
LONDON, November 17.
…Another arrest was a man who gave the name of Dr. Kumblety of New York. The police could not hold him on suspicion of the Whitechapel crimes, but he will be committed for trial at the Central Criminal Court under the special law passed soon after the Modern Babylon exposures. The police say this is the man's right name, as proved by letters in his possession; that he is from New York, and that he has been in the habit of crossing the ocean twice a year for several years.
A score of other men have been arrested by the police this week on suspicion of being the murderer, but the right man still roams at large…
Why should the cable source be taken more seriously that a mere US newspaper report? The cable source claimed its source was the police, and to confirm this being true, the points of fact given were correct and could only have come from police. “The police say this is the man’s right name as proved by letters in his possession.” All who now know Tumblety’s habits agree he did just this. How would a reporter, who had no idea Tumblety was a murder suspect at all, pull that correct fact out of thin air? There was no time for the reporter to do a background investigation before sending the cable. Just as Trevor stated, the case was in private session, so neither British nor US papers would have known, but once he posted bail on November 16th, the cable source (most likely stationed at Marlborough Street Station, since a New York World correspondent was stationed there, the timing is perfect, and the details of the case are correct) spoke with police about Tumblety and then sent the cable off by November 17th.
Also as I stated earlier, why would the London cable source just make it up about him being arrested on suspicion of the Whitechapel crimes, especially when Littlechild confirmed this and Tumblety admitted it?
Revealing inferences in the cable:
1. Tumblety was FIRST arrested for suspicion in the Whitechapel murder and then RE-ARRESTED for the gross indecency case. The cable states that there was not enough evidence to pursue the Whitechapel murder case, which clearly suggests he was ARRESTED WITHOUT A WARRANT, being a suspicious character on the streets of Whitechapel. Notice the cable also stated ‘A score of other men have been arrested…on suspicion…’ The use of ‘other’ connects this sentence with Tumblety. Even though Simon claims Tumblety stole the American slouch hat story from the Sir George Arthur incident, it is a fact that Scotland Yard was interested in lone males wearing American slouch hats throughout the entire previous month of October. Tumblety was picked up for the same reason as Arthur; a lone suspicious male on the streets of Whitechapel wearing clothing connected to a previous theory of who the killer might be. He was arrested without a warrant just like ‘a score of other men’.
2. Since Scotland Yard shifted from a case that they could not yet win, the Whitechapel investigation, to a case that they were more confident in winning, the gross indecency case, we can infer that an investigation (and file) on Tumblety must have already started specific to gross indecency. But why did they not yet bring Tumblety immediately up to the Magistrate for this? Because it was incomplete and they want a solid case.
So taking into account nineteenth century British Law, court and police procedures, and the cable source, the following series of events are presented. Keep in mind; this is not pure conjecture, because it fits the evidence:
On the November 2 weekend, Tumblety was hanging out on the West End in Marborough Street Court jurisdiction, as evidenced by young Doughty’s gross indecency claim of November 2 and that the gross indecency case was eventually in front of the Marlborough Street Court Magistrate. On the evening of the 6th, though, Tumblety was hanging out on the East End Whitechapel streets. Tumblety himself admits that he was hanging out in the Whitechapel Streets and was identified by his hat. Because of him being a lone male on the Whitechapel Streets, wearing an American slouch hat, and probably behaving erratically, he was arrested ‘on suspicion of the Whitechapel murders’ and taken into custody. It was a time that scores of men were taken into custody.
Once they realized who they had –a man they were already investigating in a gross indecency case (or even a Special Branch case) – AND because they had some kind of evidence that made Tumblety a more significant suspect than the scores of ones they merely released the next day, they made the decision to discharge and re-arrest him for gross indecency in order to keep him in their control as long as possible. Again, they could not bring Tumblety to trial for the murders, since no one saw the murders. No one was ever brought to trial for the murders.
Trevor argues about Tumblety either being arrested with or without a warrant but only for the gross indecency case. Tumblety was at the police station when they decided what action to take specific to the gross indecency case. Since he was already in custody and the gross indecency case was not fully complete, they did not want to bring it up to Hannay and commit to trial on November 7th, they needed time to solidify the case. They opted for police bail and had to release him within 24 hours, because he was not going to see the Magistrate. Police bail does not require a Magistrate’s prior approval:
On the court calendar in the ‘when received into custody’ column it states November 7th, because that’s when the detectives officially informed Tumblety of the charges of gross indecency, but they had to release him. At this time, they weren’t required to show Tumblety all of the evidence against him, so Tumblety had no fear, especially when Tumblety could afford the best solicitors and barristers. Thus, Tumblety went in front of Hannay on November 14th from police bail, but then was placed on remand by Hannay until trial.
Sincerely,
MikeThe Ripper's Haunts/JtR Suspect Dr. Francis Tumblety (Sunbury Press)
http://www.michaelLhawley.comComment
Comment