Was Tumblety in Jail during the Kelly Murder?

[David Orsam]

One suspects a raid or confrontation after obs. If so, article 4 comes into effect.

Indeed, although I'm not sure that helps Mike Hawley too much because his theory as set out in #391 was:

"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."

[Monty]

Just on a point of order, and for clarification in this interesting thread, the above extract from the Police Code seems to me to have been taken from the 1912 edition (i.e. the 15th edition, available online) under the heading "Apprehension" at article 5.

The equivalent article in the 1889 edition, however, which is the 6th edition, and which may or may not have been applicable in 1888, has different wording as follows:

"A constable in whose presence a misdemeanour is committed may also arrest the offender without warrant, if the circumstances render such a course necessary and the delinquent is not known. But mere information of the commission of a misdemeanour, except escape from custody or attempted felonies of a serious character, should not under ordinary circumstances be followed by arrest, unless a warrant has been obtained."

(This is article 4 under "Apprehension" in the 6th edition).

The 89 edition is the one I am working from David, and would have most likely been valid for 88.

As you may have noted, I asked if the circumstances of Tumbletys arrest are know, I'm still awaiting a reply.

One suspects a raid or confrontation after obs. If so, article 4 comes into effect.

Monty

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Regarding Tumblety and the Special Branch ledgers.

Clutterbuck wrote:

"The proposition that there was a possible Irish suspect for these murders is not as incongruous as it seems. At least one book, 'The Lodger' (Evans and Gainey, 1995) is based on a Home Office memorandum relating to this idea [Clutterbuck apparently means Mathews' memo to Ruggles-Brise from September, 1888 - 'Stimulate the police about Whitechapel murders. Absente Anderson, Monro might be wiling to give a hint to the CID people if needful.' WV] and there are more relevant entries in the Chief Constable's Register. It does not corroborate their [Evans and Gainey's WV] theory but does enable an outline to be constructed of an intriguing story involving an extreme Irish nationalist who is suspected of being 'Jack the Ripper', an alleged plot to assassinate the Secretary for Ireland, Balfour, and the activities of a private detective agency. [this is apparently John Walsh WV] However, it is a digression from the thrust of this research and regretfully it cannot be pursued appropriately here."

Record of any Special Branch interest in Tumblety does not, apparently exist.

Wolf.

[David Orsam]

1. The offence of gross indecency was only arrestable by means of a warrant.
Gross indecency was a misdemeanor

"A constable cannot legally arrest without warrant for a misdemeanor unless (a) the statute creating the misdemeanor expressly gives him this power, or (b) a breach of the peace is taking place or is about to take place, and the arrest is necessary to prevent it. In other cases the proper course is to apply to a magistrate for process.

Just on a point of order, and for clarification in this interesting thread, the above extract from the Police Code seems to me to have been taken from the 1912 edition (i.e. the 15th edition, available online) under the heading "Apprehension" at article 5.

The equivalent article in the 1889 edition, however, which is the 6th edition, and which may or may not have been applicable in 1888, has different wording as follows:

"A constable in whose presence a misdemeanour is committed may also arrest the offender without warrant, if the circumstances render such a course necessary and the delinquent is not known. But mere information of the commission of a misdemeanour, except escape from custody or attempted felonies of a serious character, should not under ordinary circumstances be followed by arrest, unless a warrant has been obtained."

(This is article 4 under "Apprehension" in the 6th edition).

[mklhawley]

I have been back twice the first time I didnt have the time due to the enormity of the task and the fact that there were 37.000 entries to look at.

Certainly we know Clutterbuck viewed them in un-redcated form and what he found has been documented in his thesis. He mentions nothing of Tumbelty being a suspect and doesn't mention him as being of interest to Special Branch.

He does make mention of entries relating the murders being in the registers and mentions the relevant entries but nothing startling.

"Jack the Ripper-The Secret Police Files"

http://amzn.to/1tMEImh

But Littlechild was clear, there was an extensive dossier on Tumblety at Scotland Yard. Might it only have been in CID? Maybe, but it would have been physically impossible for Littlechild to have been wrong, since we have record of Tumblety in trouble with the law in England. How coincidental, though, it was the Head of Special Branch, and Tumblety was an Irish-American.

Still haven't attempted to deal with the elephant in the room. Do you accept the Sir George Arthur story or not?

[Trevor Marriott]

If I remember correctly, you said you didn't have time to check the whole register for JTR-related entries.

If others have done so, that's good news. Though it would be nice if they could confirm the whole record has now been checked.

I have been back twice the first time I didnt have the time due to the enormity of the task and the fact that there were 37.000 entries to look at.

Certainly we know Clutterbuck viewed them in un-redcated form and what he found has been documented in his thesis. He mentions nothing of Tumbelty being a suspect and doesn't mention him as being of interest to Special Branch.

He does make mention of entries relating the murders being in the registers and mentions the relevant entries but nothing startling.

"Jack the Ripper-The Secret Police Files"

http://amzn.to/1tMEImh

[Chris]

Of course it might be said that there could have been an entry, which started
"Francis Tumblety-Suspect for Whitechapel murders" in which case the redactor would have erased his name. But that would have left the rest clearly visible. I spent several days going through the ledgers looking for any such entries and I could find none.

I am led to believe others have also done the same since my early visits.

If I remember correctly, you said you didn't have time to check the whole register for JTR-related entries.

If others have done so, that's good news. Though it would be nice if they could confirm the whole record has now been checked.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Trevor,

Our posts crossed. Thank you for your explanation. I have deleted my previous reply.


Phil

[Trevor Marriott]

Do you mean the Special Branch register? If so, that's available only in a heavily redacted form, with the names blacked out.

Yes you are right but the redactor only erased proper names. that why the 5 entries relating to Jack the Ripper and The Whitechapel murders survived the redaction.

The proper names from those 5 entries were redacted, but the Police did finally agreed to release them to me in un-redacted form.

We of course do not know if there were any entries in those ledgers specifically relating to Tumblety and his supposed Fenian connection. But one of those 5 files was a file relative to Littlechild where he names another as being a suspect in the ripper murders other than Tumblety.

I would suggest that if Tumblety had been such a high profile suspect at the time as has been suggested Littlechild would have had a file on him and a record of that file shown in the ledgers under one of more of the above categories.

Of course it might be said that there could have been an entry, which started
"Francis Tumblety-Suspect for Whitechapel murders" in which case the redactor would have erased his name. But that would have left the rest clearly visible. I spent several days going through the ledgers looking for any such entries and I could find none.

I am led to believe others have also done the same since my early visits.

For those wanting to know more, might I suggest reading

"Jack the Ripper-The Secret Police Files"

http://amzn.to/1tMEImh

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Chris]

The files of the C.I.D. are as far as we know no longer in existence. However all C.I.D. action made by individual officers are noted in one line references in the so called ledgers.

The notations in the ledgers are cross referenced in alphabetical name order. And any reference made subsequently in any future years (up to 1896?) are kept in the same alphabetical order.

As I understand it, there is no known reference to Tumblety in the ledgers at all about anything.

Do you mean the Special Branch register? If so, that's available only in a heavily redacted form, with the names blacked out.

[Amanda]

Searching...

Hi John/Phil,

Perhaps this is a simple case of 'seek and yee shall find'.

I know that from years of looking for information for my own research (not connected to Tumblety) that information can be found in the most unexpected of places.
Amanda

[Dr. John Watson]

Would somebody be kind enough to explain something that may have occurred to Mr or Mrs Every person reading this long discussion? In advance, thank you.

The so called "ledgers" at Scotland Yard are written (much of which) and recorded in the handwriting of (as I understand it) Littlechild... He of C.I.D. fame. He also of the famous letter to Sims fame.

Now in the letter he refers to a large file on Tumblety at Scotland Yard.
The files of the C.I.D. are as far as we know no longer in existence. However all C.I.D. action made by individual officers are noted in one line references in the so called ledgers.

The notations in the ledgers are cross referenced in alphabetical name order. And any reference made subsequently in any future years (up to 1896?) are kept in the same alphabetical order.

As I understand it, there is no known reference to Tumblety in the ledgers at all about anything. One would think that for a subject to have a large file with many papers referring to him whilst under C.I.D. observation and arrest, whatever the cause of C.I.D. arrest and or subsequent charge, there would be numerous references to the man's antecedents in the one line ledgers. I find that conclusion logical. I can find no special reason for his lack of inclusion.

Perhaps somebody can explain this lack of inclusion given the obvious attention the man had brought upon himself through his known antecedents?

Again, thank you.


Phil

Phil, I too would like to know more about those CID files, particularly how and where they were kept, who maintained them, what file categories existed in the late 1800s, when were they last inventoried, etc. Were they all destroyed in the rocket attacks in WWII or did some survive? Were some destroyed by fire? Were some deliberately destroyed simply to gain storage space? When were they last seen and by whom? It would seem to me that during the First and Second world wars, some action would have been taken to protect the records from destruction, as was done with other government records. I have long been interested in Francis Tumblety, going as far back as the 1960's when I first heard his name in connection with the Lincoln assassination. The efforts of Mike Hawley and others have provided much background on the man, plus my constant search for old news items, but those missing CID and Metro police files have become almost a Holy Grail.

John

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor, I respect your many years of tireless research, and if anyone can unearth the missing Tumblety police files, you can! Good hunting.

John

John
Thank you for your support and you sense of reasoning I will just clarify one point you raised if I may, that being the fact that "The London CID" who were investigating the murders,were the same London CID who had Tumblety under surveillance albeit different officers but the same force that being The Metropolitan Police.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Phil Carter]

Would somebody be kind enough to explain something that may have occurred to Mr or Mrs Every person reading this long discussion? In advance, thank you.

The so called "ledgers" at Scotland Yard are written (much of which) and recorded in the handwriting of (as I understand it) Littlechild... He of C.I.D. fame. He also of the famous letter to Sims fame.

Now in the letter he refers to a large file on Tumblety at Scotland Yard.
The files of the C.I.D. are as far as we know no longer in existence. However all C.I.D. action made by individual officers are noted in one line references in the so called ledgers.

The notations in the ledgers are cross referenced in alphabetical name order. And any reference made subsequently in any future years (up to 1896?) are kept in the same alphabetical order.

As I understand it, there is no known reference to Tumblety in the ledgers at all about anything. One would think that for a subject to have a large file with many papers referring to him whilst under C.I.D. observation and arrest, whatever the cause of C.I.D. arrest and or subsequent charge, there would be numerous references to the man's antecedents in the one line ledgers. I find that conclusion logical. I can find no special reason for his lack of inclusion.

Perhaps somebody can explain this lack of inclusion given the obvious attention the man had brought upon himself through his known antecedents?

Again, thank you.


Phil

[Dr. John Watson]

Hi John

In searching through various published works, dissertations, discussions, and postings on the Ripper murders, I can find reference to no arrest report, booking record, or other official document giving details concerning the arrest of Tumblety on November 7. So far as I am aware, nothing is really known as to where he was arrested, why he was arrested, what charges if any were alleged against him, what statements if any were made by him, and how long he was held in custody. Thus, we are all debating something about which we know virtually nothing, except what we read in the paper. The fact that each side has well-researched perfectly logical arguments supporting his position, yet cannot prove his case, is evidence that definitive information concerning the arrest is lacking. The debate will continue, but sadly we may never know the answers for certain.

On the contrary it is recorded that he was arrested on Nov 7th and for what offences he was arrested for and subsequent charged with. The law is clearly defined with regards to arrests for these types of offences as I have already stated in previous posts.

The record you're referring to is a registry entry in a court file which was written sometime after the arrest by someone other than police. It was not written by police and does not represent a true copy of any police reports relating to the arrest.

It is recorded that he was committed for trial on Nov 14 but not granted bail with sureties until Nov 16th. So as to what went on in the interim periods one can draw proper inferences based on the the working of the judicial system back then.

The key word here is inferences which is what most of your argument relies upon. Certainly your interpretation is logical and well-reasoned, but it's still conjecture. A brief entry in a court register cannot substitute for the missing police files.

London police pulled in many supposed suspects in the Ripper case who were held for a period of time until their stories checked out or someone could vouch for them, and then were released. Were these individuals all arrested by warrant? Were they even charged with a crime? In some instances, it's possible the suspect was cleared of the Ripper murders but then charged in another case which, it could be argued, is what happened with Tumblety.
But no one really believes that police simply stumbled on Tumblety's criminal assaults on four men weeks earlier. Although case files and investigative records are missing or suppressed, obviously Tumblety was under surveillance for months before the Ripper murders, not by Metropolitan police but by CID, and that Department was interested in Tumblety, not because he was accosting young men but because of his suspected connection with Fenian activities. I believe they provided Metro police with the sexual assault evidence to get Tumblety behind bars where he might be more willing to cooperate and hopefully provide useful information to them. That is a theory, nothing more.

The CID are a part of The Metropolitan Police and there appears to be nothing to support his Fenian involvment.

Intelligence officers, be they local, state or federal, are notorious for their strict adherence to secrecy since any leak of information, even among fellow police officers, could compromise ongoing investigations. There is absolutely no reason to believe London's CID officers would share secret files with others unless, as I suspect happened in this case, it would benefit their investigation. And there is contemporary evidence that Tumblety supplied money to the Fenians prior to his arrest, as several well-researched articles have shown.

Trevor, I respect your many years of tireless research, and if anyone can unearth the missing Tumblety police files, you can! Good hunting.

John