Was Tumblety in Jail during the Kelly Murder?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mike,

A number of "Tumblety was bailed" adherents are arguing that on 7th November he was bailed by a magistrate, whereas you are sticking with SPE's pre-magistrate seven-day police bail scenario which Trevor ably demonstrated was not an option in 1888.

Which was it?

Regards,

Simon

[mklhawley]

Hi Mike,

A number of "Tumblety was bailed" adherents are arguing that on 7th November he was bailed by a magistrate, whereas you are sticking with SPE's pre-magistrate seven-day police bail scenario which Trevor ably demonstrated was not an option in 1888.

Which was it?

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon,

Yes, I fully understand they are, and that's ok, but Trevor did not demonstrate anything of the kind. They arrested him without a warrant because of the Whitechapel murder case. Besides, MPA 1839 stated "...except persons detained for the mere purpose of ascertaining their name or residence." That's exactly what they did with him. ...and then SJA 1879, "if the person in custody without a warrant cannot be taken before a magistrate within 24 hours, bail is compulsory for any trifling offence, even a felony not of a serous nature." He was eligible for bail.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Chris]

A number of "Tumblety was bailed" adherents are arguing that on 7th November he was bailed by a magistrate ...

Just to be on the safe side, some of us are arguing that the records just don't tell us whether he was bailed or not.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Simon,

Yes, I fully understand they are, and that's ok, but Trevor did not demonstrate anything of the kind. They arrested him without a warrant because of the Whitechapel murder case. Besides, MPA 1839 stated "...except persons detained for the mere purpose of ascertaining their name or residence." That's exactly what they did with him. ...and then SJA 1879, "if the person in custody without a warrant cannot be taken before a magistrate within 24 hours, bail is compulsory for any trifling offence, even a felony not of a serous nature." He was eligible for bail.

Sincerely,

Mike

Mike

Perhaps you would care to tell us what grounds the police had for arresting him for the murders?

Also what they did with him after they had arrested him for the murders ?

When are you going to realise that there was no police 7 day bail in operation as Stewart Evans has suggested, sorry to disappoint all his disciples but he was wrong. He was also wrong where he suggests as a result of him failing to appear they issued a warrant for his arrest. The entry on the court calender which he suggests was a warrant of arrest was as can be seen the date he was committed and a commital warrant issued

As you have indicated there was a police court bail procedure which is totally different to police bail. The police court bail as you have stated when applied meant that the person bailed had to attend the next available court and this was only used when it was not practicable to bring the prisoner before the court i.e a prisoner is arrested on a saturday afternoon, then the prisoner could be bailed until Mondays court. But only for minor matters.

This could not have applied to Tumbley as he was arrested on a weekday and therfore the police were in a positon to put him before the next available court.

Furthermore Tumblety was not arrested without a warrant for the gross indecency offences, that being the case the warrant dictated that he was to be taken before the next court. If he had been arrested at 10am on Nov 7th. He would have gone before the court that same day . He would not have been taken to a police station unless the warrant was executed out of court hours then he would have been detained at the police station overnight.

[Trevor Marriott]

Just to be on the safe side, some of us are arguing that the records just don't tell us whether he was bailed or not.

You are quiet right they dont and I fully accept that this cannot be proved definitively. However the balance of probability based on the new known facts and the dissemination of the old facts, coupled with the due process of the law as it was in 1888 and the legal procedures of the day firmly suggests that he was in custody.

Some of those arguing that he was at liberty between Nov 7th and Nov 14th have with out a doubt moved the goalposts several times during this debate.

[m_w_r]

The entry on the court calender which he suggests was a warrant of arrest was as can be seen the date he was committed and a commital warrant issued.

Hi Trevor,

Actually, this is part of my difficulty in understanding your article. There are three Court Calendars presented as images in your article, two of which are captioned Old Bailey Court Calendar for November 1888, and the other of which is captioned Old Bailey Court Calendar for December 1888. The two November entries are different to one another, and although I can infer what some of the columns are getting at, it would be helpful to know what the column titles at the top of the page are. It would also be helpful to know what ditto means where entries previous to Tumblety's aren't shown on your image. Likewise, it would be good to see both pages of the Calendar in every case - in the first image in your article, only the left-hand page is shown, although the entry obviously extends across the right-hand page as well. Is there any chance (a) of putting these up here so that I can get a better grasp of what's going on, or (b) if they're on this site already, directing me to them? And is there any chance you could indicate where you saw the documents in question, their file extension in the catalogue of the relevant repository, etc? All of this would be very helpful.

Regards,

Mark

[mklhawley]

Mike

Perhaps you would care to tell us what grounds the police had for arresting him for the murders?

Trevor, I was the British cop you weren't...No, that's not it. Tumblety was arrested just as the scores of other suspicious characters were; without a warrant. Are you saying PC's did not have the authority to arrest people on the streets?

Also what they did with him after they had arrested him for the murders ?

See my above post.

When are you going to realise that there was no police 7 day bail in operation as Stewart Evans has suggested, sorry to disappoint all his disciples but he was wrong. He was also wrong where he suggests as a result of him failing to appear they issued a warrant for his arrest. The entry on the court calender which he suggests was a warrant of arrest was as can be seen the date he was committed and a commital warrant issued

A seven day bail is meaningless. Check out the Ginger case again. He was clearly arrested without a warrant and he did not have to go in front of the Magistrate for well over a month. I do not agree that there was a warrant for his arrest. It's just that we now know more...thanks in part to your article.

As you have indicated there was a police court bail procedure which is totally different to police bail. The police court bail as you have stated when applied meant that the person bailed had to attend the next available court and this was only used when it was not practicable to bring the prisoner before the court i.e a prisoner is arrested on a saturday afternoon, then the prisoner could be bailed until Mondays court. But only for minor matters.

This could not have applied to Tumbley as he was arrested on a weekday and therfore the police were in a positon to put him before the next available court.

They were in the position, but they didn't have to as per the police bail document I showed.

Furthermore Tumblety was not arrested without a warrant for the gross indecency offences, that being the case the warrant dictated that he was to be taken before the next court. If he had been arrested at 10am on Nov 7th. He would have gone before the court that same day . He would not have been taken to a police station unless the warrant was executed out of court hours then he would have been detained at the police station overnight.

He was already AT the police station, because he was arrested without a warrant on suspicion of the Whitechapel crimes. The police did not want to take him to Hannay, because their gross indecency case was not ready.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Michael W Richards]

It would seem that the objection to Trevors comments is that the belief exists that Dr T was indeed a viable suspect in the Whitechapel Murders.

I would be pleased if someone would direct me to the evidence that suggests that they had a reason to suspect him of any violent crime, since he matches none of the suspects seen with the women before their deaths, there was no blood evidence linking him to the crimes, nor any physical materials. As far as I know of the man, he is considered a possible poisoner for something that took place in the Maritime provinces and he was a charlatan posing as a doctor.

Snake oil salesmen with direct ties to Fenian organizations are not generally considered to be bloodthirsty murderers without ANY evidence, nor, even in Victorian times, by their choice to engage in what some considered deviant sexual behavior.

Tummblety was far more interesting to the police for his Fenian links.

Best regards,

Michael

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mike,

"Check out the Ginger case again. He was clearly arrested without a warrant . . ."

Henry George Ginger, Old Bailey 10th December 1888.

Robert Child (City Detective Sergeant)—

"I took him [Ginger] in custody on 13th September, and read the warrant to him . . ."

Regards,

Simon

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Mike,

"Check out the Ginger case again. He was clearly arrested without a warrant . . ."

Henry George Ginger, Old Bailey 10th December 1888.

Robert Child (City Detective Sergeant)—

I took him [Ginger] in custody on 13th September, and read the warrant to him . . ."

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon,

Its not the paper issue Im referring to Simon, its the philosophical one. I cannot believe that anyone would be detained for any crime if not one whit of evidence, circumstantial or not, was apparent.

I do not see any validation for suspecting they considered him a suspect in the murders, but I could easily see him detained for his Fenian ties or his fraudulent snake oil cures or his perceived deviant behavior.

The suggestion that they could hold anyone without any cause for any crime isnt really something I can personally accept.

If that was the case why not hold or arrest every man in Whitechapel who had a knife, was out a night during that Fall, and seemed unfriendly toward women. Some people were held without charges for the crimes, for certain, but they were held because they confessed, or someone said they saw them in a compromising situation that included potential violence, they were violent in their life before the killings, or they matched the profile that the police had established for the killer.

Tummblety was none of the above. He wasnt even a medical man.

All the best Simon,

Michael

[Simon Wood]

Hi Michael [Richards],

Sorry, my post was directed to Mike Hawley.

Regards,

Simon

[mklhawley]

It would seem that the objection to Trevors comments is that the belief exists that Dr T was indeed a viable suspect in the Whitechapel Murders.

He was.

I would be pleased if someone would direct me to the evidence that suggests that they had a reason to suspect him of any violent crime, since he matches none of the suspects seen with the women before their deaths, there was no blood evidence linking him to the crimes, nor any physical materials.

Hmmm, because Scotland Yard suspected him. Not only Chief Inspector Littlechild stated he was 'a likely suspect', Sir Robert Anderson personally requested information on Francis Tumblety with respect to the Whitechapel crimes.

How do you know that the killer matched any of the suspects seen? Do you know who the killer was? The killer could have easily followed these punters with their unfortunates and NO ONE would have seen him with the women. And there was no blood evidence and physical materials for anyone. Why would this eliminate just Tumblety?

As far as I know of the man, he is considered a possible poisoner for something that took place in the Maritime provinces and he was a charlatan posing as a doctor.

That's really the issue, isn't it. You know very little about the man and have been sucked into many misconceptions. I suggest reading the Tumblety suspect threads.

[mklhawley]

Hi Mike,

"Check out the Ginger case again. He was clearly arrested without a warrant . . ."

Henry George Ginger, Old Bailey 10th December 1888.

Robert Child (City Detective Sergeant)—

"I took him [Ginger] in custody on 13th September, and read the warrant to him . . ."

Regards,

Simon

Simon, you are absolutely right. It still doesn't change my point, but that was awesome.

Sincerely,
Mike

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mike,

Just so we're clear, which particular point would that be?

Regards,

Simon

[mklhawley]

Hi Mike,

Just so we're clear, which particular point would that be?

Regards,

Simon

The police bail issue specific to Tumblety. Remember the point Wolf made, the Letter of the Law as you or I interpret it may not necessarily be how Victorian police interpreted the letter of the law. We don't really know how much wiggle room there was; especially when gross indecency was such a new law.

Sincerely,

Mike