Was Tumblety in Jail during the Kelly Murder?

[Trevor Marriott]

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

Mark

I have had to point out several times to some posters througout this thread that they are appearing to not have read and digested the RIP article or in fact replies to others which I have posted on here.

I would therfore ask you to read post 104 which sets outs certain facts that should be taken on board when assesing whether or not Tumbley was free between Nov 7-14th. So I am not going to rewrite it again here.

I would ask you as I have asked Mike Hawley to explain how you beleive Tumblety came to be free between those dates. He hasbeen unable to do so perhaps you can succeed where he has failed ?

[PaulB]

One might note, with all due caution, that Tumblety told the New York World that he was detained for 'two or three days'...

Taking the warning of due caution very seriously, but aware that a self-publicist like Tumblety might be expected to have milked a longer detention for all it was worth, his somewhat off-hand "two or three days" does have the ring of truth about it.

[PaulB]

Mark

I have had to point out several times to some posters througout this thread that they are appearing to not have read and digested the RIP article or in fact replies to others which I have posted on here.

I would therfore ask you to read post 104 which sets outs certain facts that should be taken on board when assesing whether or not Tumbley was free between Nov 7-14th. So I am not going to rewrite it again here.

I would ask you as I have asked Mike Hawley to explain how you beleive Tumblety came to be free between those dates. He hasbeen unable to do so perhaps you can succeed where he has failed ?

Trevor,
I have read your Post 104 several times and I am obviously missing something because it seems to me that you are there spending a lot of time pointing out why Tumblety would not have been granted bail.

For example, you write: "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."

But Tumblety was given bail. So what changed? Why was he more unlikely to have been granted bail on the 7th than he was a week or two weeks later?

I also don't see how Post 104 answers the points posed by Mark.

[m_w_r]

I would therfore ask you to read post 104 which sets outs certain facts that should be taken on board when assesing whether or not Tumbley was free between Nov 7-14th. So I am not going to rewrite it again here.

I would ask you as I have asked Mike Hawley to explain how you beleive Tumblety came to be free between those dates. He hasbeen unable to do so perhaps you can succeed where he has failed ?

Hi Trevor,

Well, as you point out in #104, there isn't any proof either way, so we don't know whether Tumblety was out on bail or not in the week after 7 November 1888. But since we're agreed on that I don't think I need go much further.

I do take into account the remainder of the post, where you give your reasons for believing the opinion that Tumblety was in custody and not free to roam to be one which could be reasonably held. But it is all written in the subjunctive, as it has to be, in the absence of evidence. I understand your position, and that you are working on what you believe to be the balance of probabilities, but it is fair to point out that there is no concrete proof that the things which 'would have' happened, in your view, did, in fact, happen. Taking all of that in hand, I think I would prefer to stick to my stated position, this being that we just don't know.

I can't answer for Mike Hawley, but I don't think he is trying to say anything different: we don't have any proof that Tumblety was, or was not, in custody, so, even if you look at the totality of the evidence, both alternatives remain open.

I would say, however, that it may be unfair to declare anything dead in the water in the absence of more reliable evidence, and this is where I do disagree with you. And, actually, if you want my opinion, your theory doesn't benefit from the balls-out, over-driven, gladiatorial posturing to which you sometimes appear inclined.

Regards,

Mark

[Monty]

...balls-out, over-driven, gladiatorial posturing to which you sometimes appear inclined.

Oh good God no....you torture me Ripper.

Monty

[Chris]

I would ask you as I have asked Mike Hawley to explain how you beleive Tumblety came to be free between those dates. He hasbeen unable to do so perhaps you can succeed where he has failed ?

Obviously the possibility is that he was granted bail in the magistrates' court immediately after his arrest on 7 November.

It hasn't been suggested that there was any legal or procedural reason why that couldn't have happened, and the case of Henry George Ginger shows that such bail wouldn't necessarily have been noted in the calendar.

Ginger's case also shows that even where a defendant had been bailed before committal, and where bail was accepted at committal, there could be a delay before the defendant was actually bailed again. That answers your argument towards the end of post 104.

The other arguments in post 104 are that you think the magistrate wouldn't have granted bail because the risk of him absconding would have been too great, and that if he had been granted bail he would have absconded before 14 November. It's fair enough to raise those arguments, but they are really in a different category from the ones about legal procedure and the evidence of the calendar. And obviously there are arguments that can be put on the other side too.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

Well, as you point out in #104, there isn't any proof either way, so we don't know whether Tumblety was out on bail or not in the week after 7 November 1888. But since we're agreed on that I don't think I need go much further.

I do take into account the remainder of the post, where you give your reasons for believing the opinion that Tumblety was in custody and not free to roam to be one which could be reasonably held. But it is all written in the subjunctive, as it has to be, in the absence of evidence. I understand your position, and that you are working on what you believe to be the balance of probabilities, but it is fair to point out that there is no concrete proof that the things which 'would have' happened, in your view, did, in fact, happen. Taking all of that in hand, I think I would prefer to stick to my stated position, this being that we just don't know.

I can't answer for Mike Hawley, but I don't think he is trying to say anything different: we don't have any proof that Tumblety was, or was not, in custody, so, even if you look at the totality of the evidence, both alternatives remain open.

But the balance of probablity suggests he was in custodyI would say, however, that it may be unfair to declare anything dead in the water in the absence of more reliable evidence, and this is where I do disagree with you. And, actually, if you want my opinion, your theory doesn't benefit from the balls-out, over-driven, gladiatorial posturing to which you sometimes appear inclined.


Regards,

Mark

Well as far as being dead in the water much of what people have relied uopn to support Tumbley being a viable suspect has eminated from Stewart Evans suggestions which have been demonstrated to be wrong. Without them what else is there.

The reliable evidence used to negate Evans suggestions appears to be factual and irrefutable.

[Trevor Marriott]

Obviously the possibility is that he was granted bail in the magistrates' court immediately after his arrest on 7 November.

It hasn't been suggested that there was any legal or procedural reason why that couldn't have happened, and the case of Henry George Ginger shows that such bail wouldn't necessarily have been noted in the calendar.

Ginger's case also shows that even where a defendant had been bailed before committal, and where bail was accepted at committal, there could be a delay before the defendant was actually bailed again. That answers your argument towards the end of post 104.

The other arguments in post 104 are that you think the magistrate wouldn't have granted bail because the risk of him absconding would have been too great, and that if he had been granted bail he would have absconded before 14 November. It's fair enough to raise those arguments, but they are really in a different category from the ones about legal procedure and the evidence of the calendar. And obviously there are arguments that can be put on the other side too.

Chris

I see you like others cherry pick the points you wish to argue but other more pertinent ones you ignore.

For example if Tumbley was not in custody between Nov 7-14th how can it be explained that he was in custody between Nov 14th-16th, and then given bail on the 16th.

If a person had been on bail and has not breached that bail it is normal practice to simply extend bail. Not to remand someone in custody for two days and then grant bail.

Whether you or others like it or not the issues regarding the granting of bail were real issues which the courts and the police did have to take into consideration when considering bail, and are still considered by the police and courts to this very day.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor,
I have read your Post 104 several times and I am obviously missing something because it seems to me that you are there spending a lot of time pointing out why Tumblety would not have been granted bail.

For example, you write: "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."

But Tumblety was given bail. So what changed? Why was he more unlikely to have been granted bail on the 7th than he was a week or two weeks later?

I also don't see how Post 104 answers the points posed by Mark.

Tumbley was given bail but with high sureties after his commital which is in line with the court practices in relation to granting bail for misdemeanours as referenced in the post.

[m_w_r]

If a person had been on bail and has not breached that bail it is normal practice to simply extend bail. Not to remand someone in custody for two days and then grant bail.

Hi Trevor,

Bit disingenuous. You know perfectly well what happened here: Tumblety was committed for trial, and then (presumably via his representative in the police court, if he had one) requested bail, and the magistrate agreed. The only problem was that Tumblety didn't have two people with him who were equipped to offer sureties on his behalf. So the magistrate said something like, 'Well, you'll have to go to Newgate, as a prisoner committed for trial, until such time as you obtain the sureties.' So Tumblety did go to Newgate, but on 16 November his sureties were found, and he was vailed. So he wasn't remanded in custody for two days - he was remanded in custody until such time as he should obtain his sureties, or until his trial, whichever came first.

So, actually, your first sentence here -

If a person had been on bail and has not breached that bail it is normal practice to simply extend bail.

- would seem to begin to tip the balance of probabilities back towards Tumbelty's freedom over the week in question. Bail was accepted at the 14 November hearing, and this may indicate that bail had been accepted on 7 November, since Tumblety had clearly answered to his recognisances by appearing for the 14 November hearing.

I don't need to speak for Chris either, but I would suggest that if you're going to accuse him of malpractice, then I would be very specific and certain of my grounds if I were you.

Regards,

Mark

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Tumblety interview, New York World, 29th January 1889.

"There was absolutely not one single scintilla of evidence against me" . . . yet " . . . I was charged with a series of the most horrible crimes ever recorded."

The jury appears to be out on whether or not this series included Millers Court.

According to Tumblety, he was actually charged [formally accused] of multiple murder—not simply suspected because he happened to be wearing a slouch hat.

As a rule the police tend not to formally charge people with murder, only to subsequently discover they have no evidence with which to substantiate the charge.

If Tumblety was telling the truth [which I somehow doubt] he could have sued the Metropolitan Police for false arrest and defamation of character.

Regards,

Simon

[Jenni Shelden]

Maybe I have been watching the Bill too much but i do wonder sometimes if it is theoretically possible (and i am trying to choose my words carefully) that the Police arrested Tumblety on the lesser charge in order to detain him?

[PaulB]

According to Tumblety, he was actually charged [formally accused] of multiple murder—not simply suspected because he happened to be wearing a slouch hat.

Interesting. But, Simon, do you really believe it more probable than not that Tumblety used the word "charged" in its full-blown legal sense?

[Robert]

New York World, Dec 4th 1888 :

"Francis Tumblety, or Twomblety, who was arrested in London for supposed complicity in the Whitechapel crimes and held under bail for other offenses...."

"Even in the saloons where he often went to drink he was spoken of with loathing and contempt. He must have kept himself very quiet on the La Bretagne, for a number of passengers who were interviewed could not remember having seen any one answering his description. It will be remembered that he fled from London to Paris to escape being prosecuted under the new "Fall of Babylon" act.

Inspector Byrnes was asked what his object in shadowing Twomblety. "I simply wanted to put a tag on him." he replied, "so that we can tell where he is. Of course, he cannot be arrested, for there is no proof in his complicity in the Whitechapel murders, and the crime for which he was under bond in London is not extaditable."

"Do you think he is Jack the Ripper?" the Inspector was asked.

"I don't know anything about it, and therefore I don't care to be quoted. But if they think in London that they may need him, and he turns out to be guilty our men will probably have a good idea where he can be found." "

[Simon Wood]

Hi Paul,

All I know is that Tumblety used the term "charged" [formally accused] which, according to his own narrative, appears to have been based solely on the consequences of an unwise choice in millinery.

Regards,

Simon