Was Tumblety in Jail during the Kelly Murder?

[DGB]

....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.

Hi Trevor

Whilst I agree that taking only the legal procedures of the day, the balance of probability is that Tumblety was not free at the time of Kelly's murder.

I would argue that given that we have record of a similar case where the opposite happened, coupled with Littlechild's statements and Tumblety himself saying he was only imprisoned for two or three days (secondary source I know) - in this case the balance of probability is against Tumblety being incarcerated at the time of the Kelly murder.

[Trevor Marriott]

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

Mike

Having regard to you raising the issue of wiggling originally raised by Wolf I will try to explain all of this through a police perspective as you have set out your own scenario relating to Tumbletys arrest for the Whitechapel Murders. I hope this will make things much clearer for you and others to understand.

The first thing you must appreciate in 1888 was that the only way the police could convict anyone was

Catching the person committing the crime
Finding witnesses who saw the crime being committed
Or by the accused making a full and frank confession

So now lets look at it from a police investigative way set by step using your scenario as a yardstick.

You infer the police received information or adduced infomation in some way that Tumblety may be the killer. At this time they have no witnesses and no other evidence. The information may be reliable it may not be.

So what do they do then, the first thing they dont do is go out and bring him on the strength of what they have. This would be futile, and unless he made a confession they would no doubt lose any chance thereafter of ever convicting him because he would know they were onto him.

They would set up a 24 hour surveillance on him and follow his every movement.

But the likelihood was that he was already under surveillance for the gross indecency investigation, In the light of that they would liase with those officers and compare notes and perhaps that surveillance would rule him out completley i.e. Mary Nicholls August 31st. In any event they would have the opportunity of carrying out such surveillance on him if they thought it would be productive.

Now you suggest they simply went out arrested him and didnt have any evidence and had to let him go, that would have meant formally discharging him. You then suggest that at that same time they then arrested him for the gross indeceny offences.

So lets look at that. Firstly as I have stated above arresting him for the murders without having any evidence to put to him would have been a waste of time for the reasons stated above.

Now this where I belive you have shot yourslef in the foot with your suggestion of bail etc.

According to you he was the Whitechapel murderer but they could not charge him. But they had him now in custody for gross indeceny offences and were obliged to put him before a court on those charges where the question of bail on the gross indeceny offences would be raised.

If they really beleived he was the killer they would have moved heaven and earth to keep him off the streets. That would have entailed making strong represenations to the magistarate with regards to opposing bail based on the reasons previoulsy mentioned.

Now you mentioned wiggling the only wiggling based on your theory I would suggest would have been by the police to the magistrate in a back room telling him he was belived to be The Whitechapel Murderer and then the magistrate would most certainly not have granted bail even with sureties at that time.

Continuing with your theory where you then suggest that Tumblety in fact got bail on Nov 7th. If that be the case then the police would have had him under surveillance therafter. They would have known if he had been anywhere near Millers Court. Even taking the worst case scenario that they didnt follow him as soon as the Kelly murder came to light if there was any suspicion on him his feet would not have touched the floor on his way back to the cells.

Perhaps you would now care to review you postion with regards to Tumbley and the question of any form of bail being granted on November 7th.

On a final note there is no evidence to suggest Tumblety was ever a scotland yard suspect. As you know Littlechild refers to him as a likely suspect in his opinion some 20 years after he retired in 1913.

As far as Littelchild is concerned it should also be noted that he makes no mention of Tumblety in his memoirs "The reminiscences of Chief-Inspector Littlechild" 1894

[Jonathan H]

Everybody interprets disparate and incomplete primary sources to the best of their ability.

We all just have to agreeably agree to disagree, unless another unknown source turns up.

Trevor's article was a good read and well argued. But logic is not on it's side in terms of the actions and/or words of Anderson, Littlechild, Walter Andrews -- and Tumblety himself.

I would just add that Dr. Francis Tumblety was arguably Scotland Yard's chief Ripper suspect at the end of 1888, and then seems to have been 'cleared' by subsequent Whitechapel murders which were initially ascribed by the authorities to 'Jack'.

I think that much later Macnaghten fused Dr T with Mr D, creating 'Dr D'; a suspect who never literally exited (he did something very similar, in his memoirs, with a pair of suspects in the Elizabeth Camp murder too) hence the alleged 'belief' that the American had taken his own life after supposedly vanishing abroad.

It is not well understood here but 'Dr D' was a short-term propagandist triumph, but also a perplexing jumble which Jack Littlechild, in 1913, is trying to untangle -- but he only knows about one suspect and George Sims only knows about the other.

Nevertheless, that Macnaghten chose Tumblety, as opposed to say Pizer or Sadler or Sanders or Grant, is in itself a measure of the eccentric's initial primacy in the official investigation -- which Littlechild easily recalled twenty-five years later.

[m_w_r]

The first thing you must appreciate in 1888 was that the only way the police could convict anyone was

Catching the person committing the crime
Finding witnesses who saw the crime being committed
Or by the accused making a full and frank confession

Hi Trevor,

Poppycock, and you know it. There were plenty of convictions on circumstantial evidence before 1888, and there have been plenty since. I don't know why you do this to yourself.

Any chance of those images?

Regards,

Mark

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

Poppycock, and you know it. There were plenty of convictions on circumstantial evidence before 1888, and there have been plenty since. I don't know why you do this to yourself.

Any chance of those images?

Regards,

Mark

Mark

I am keeping it simple for the benefit of Mr Hawley to understand,

Circumstantial evidence is not guaranteed to secure a conviction the three examples referred to are.

Of course if you have any circumstantial evidence against Tumblety please feel free to share it with us.

Trevor

[Bridewell]

Imprisoned

Hi Trevor

Whilst I agree that taking only the legal procedures of the day, the balance of probability is that Tumblety was not free at the time of Kelly's murder.

I would argue that given that we have record of a similar case where the opposite happened, coupled with Littlechild's statements and Tumblety himself saying he was only imprisoned for two or three days (secondary source I know) - in this case the balance of probability is against Tumblety being incarcerated at the time of the Kelly murder.

Hi DGB,

Not being imprisoned is not the same as not being in custody. If a man was in custody in a police station he is not, technically, imprisoned. It's what Tumblety meant by his use of the word which is key though, of course.

Regards, Bridewell.

[m_w_r]

Hi Trevor,

Circumstantial evidence is not guaranteed to secure a conviction the three examples referred to are.

Poppycock. False confessions don't bring about convictions. You can have all the witnesses in the world, but if the defendant is found to be insane, then there's no conviction. You can catch someone committing a crime, but if the crime you caught them committing is one of a battery of offences all being tried at the same time, and another offence (normally of a higher tariff) is dealt with first and a conviction is obtained, the offence you caught them committing might well be left on file. These are just examples.

Of course if you have any circumstantial evidence against Tumblety please feel free to share it with us.

You know that's not what I'm getting at. Images, please!

Regards,

Mark

[Chris]

Mark

There are some more images of the calendar on this thread (though maybe not everything you're looking for):

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

[m_w_r]

Hi Chris,

Thanks - this is very helpful.

Regards,

Mark

[Trevor Marriott]

Mark

There are some more images of the calendar on this thread (though maybe not everything you're looking for):
http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=291

Post 18 on that thread is a very intersting post do you not think ?

[m_w_r]

Post 18 on that thread is a very intersting post do you not think ?

Hi Trevor,

I think it is if you take it together with post #48. Keep reading.

Regards,

Mark

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

I think it is if you take it together with post #48. Keep reading.

Regards,

Mark

You have missed the point completely

[m_w_r]

You have missed the point completely

Hi Trevor,

Perhaps, then, you should make your point and put me out of my misery.

Oh, images, please!

Regards,

Mark

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

Perhaps, then, you should make your point and put me out of my misery.

Oh, images, please!

Regards,

Mark

All in good time Mark

[m_w_r]

All in good time Mark

Hi Trevor,

I mean, the truth is, and has to be, that:

a) The Court Calendars do not show whether Tumblety was, or was not, kept in custody between his arrest and/or police court appearance on 7 November 1888, and his police court appearance on 14 November 1888.

b) The Court Calendars do show that Tumblety was Tumblety was committed for trial on 14 November 1888, and bailed out of Newgate on 16 November 1888.

I think the allusion to the case of Levy and Cottee is not a good one as, although the committal warrant was issued on 9 November 1888, they were also bailed to reappear at the Central Criminal Court for the December sessions, which they did. There seems to have been a possibility that the case against them would be discontinued, depending on the result of the bankruptcy hearing in the Queen's Bench Division on 13 November 1888 - their appearance at the Central Criminal Court, in December, was therefore to either (a) be formally exonerated, or (b) be re-arrested and stand trial, depending on what had happened in the bankruptcy hearing. As it happens, they were re-arrested and tried. You will notice that the date they were received into custody is later than the date of their committal warrant - an unusual situation, and therefore not a good comparison with Tumblety. That's how I read it, anyway.

In the end it seems to me that none of the available sources settle the question of whether Tumblety was in custody and therefore out of commission murder-wise on 9 November 1888. One might note, with all due caution, that Tumblety told the New York World that he was detained for 'two or three days', which would, if it could be relied upon, indicate that he was not detained between 7 and 14 November 1888. But the possibility exists - as it did before your article was published - that he was indeed in custody. We don't know, and we can't say either way.

Now, in the absence of any other evidence beyond that already considered, nothing more certain can be stated, can it?

Regards,

Mark