Was Tumblety in Jail during the Kelly Murder?

[mklhawley]

By the way, the ripcord remark was awesome!

[mklhawley]

Hi Mike,

And I recommend you stop making up the truth and get in touch with reality.

Pull that ripcord before it's too late.

Regards,

Simon

Soooo, which part is making up the truth? I support everything with evidence.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mike,

And I recommend you stop making up the truth and get in touch with reality.

Pull that ripcord before it's too late.

Regards,

Simon

[mklhawley]

Hi Mike,

In the New York World, 18th November 1888 [a Sunday], Tracy Greaves reported that Sir George Arthur had been arrested "last week."

The new week starts on Sunday.

If Sir George [and Tumblety] were arrested on Friday 16th November [as per the Boston Globe] then Greaves was right about the time of Sir George's arrest but neglected to mention the arrest of Tumblety [wearing the same slouch hat] in his report.

Indulge my ignorance. Exactly how did daily newspapers report cable news?

Regards,

Simon

Simon,

I recommend you read my Tumblety 'Over the Wire' article. I clarify this. No, Greaves did not neglect to mention Tumblety. Greaves sent the cable wire in its entirety to Headquarters in New York on November 17 and they opted not to print the 'Kumblety' story until the next day. Why? Because they wanted to further investigate their fellow New Yorker.

At the same time Headquarters received the cable the telegraph repeater sent the story to other daily newspapers connected to the New York World (this was not the Associated Press), such as the San Francisco Chronicle, The Boston Globe, the Chicago Herald, and the Ottawa Free Press. The Ottawa Paper neglected to print the Tumblety story, as well, but printed the Sir George Arthur story.

Also, why are you attempting to connect the Boston Globe's addition of being arrested on the same day and the World stating Arthur was arrested a week ago? Doesn't work.

Mike

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mike,

In the New York World, 18th November 1888 [a Sunday], Tracy Greaves reported that Sir George Arthur had been arrested "last week."

The new week starts on Sunday.

If Sir George [and Tumblety] were arrested on Friday 16th November [as per the Boston Globe] then Greaves was right about the time of Sir George's arrest but neglected to mention the arrest of Tumblety [wearing the same slouch hat] in his report.

Indulge my ignorance. Exactly how did daily newspapers report cable news?

Regards,

Simon

[mklhawley]

Hi Mike,

Tumblety was bailed on Friday 16th November 1888.

In the 18th November Boston Globe story, datelined London 17th November, Tumblety was arrested on suspicion of the Whitechapel crimes "yesterday," Friday 16th November.

So, according to your oft-quoted Boston Globe report, Tumblety had been arrested and bailed on charges of indecent behaviour nine days before having been suspected of the Whitechapel murders.

Discuss.

Regards,

Simon

You're showing your ignorance on how daily papers reported cable news not from their own paper, as in this case. They title it themselves, so Greaves did not report this. Sorry Simon

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mike,

Tumblety was bailed on Friday 16th November 1888.

In the 18th November Boston Globe story, datelined London 17th November, Tumblety was arrested on suspicion of the Whitechapel crimes "yesterday," Friday 16th November.

So, according to your oft-quoted Boston Globe report, Tumblety had been arrested and bailed on charges of indecent behaviour nine days before having been suspected of the Whitechapel murders.

Discuss.

Regards,

Simon

[Trevor Marriott]

So what? You've been given examples over and over again of people who have been bailed without it being mentioned in the calendar. You seem to understand at the time, but invariably you're back a day or two later with a non sequitur like the above.

True but they are relevant in the grand scheme of things .

[Trevor Marriott]

Or, "In cases which fell outside of a magistrate's summary jurisdiction..." just as Stewart Evans pointed out, the November 7 arrest was outside of the magistrate's jurisdiction.

But again, Trevor, you're ignoring the elephant in the room:


BOSTON GLOBE, November 18,1888

DOING WHITECHAPEL
TWO ARRESTS ON SUSPICION MADE YESTERDAY.
ONE A CHUM OF THE PRINCE OF WALES AND THE OTHER AN AMERICAN PHYSICIAN.

London, Nov. 17-

Just think of it ! One of the Prince of Wales' own exclusives, a member of his household and cavalry and one of the best known swells about town who glory in the glamor of the Guelphs, getting into custody on suspicion of being the Whitechapel murderer. It is the talk of all clubdom tonight.
Just now it is a fashionable fad to slum it in Whitechapel and every night scores of young men who have never been in the East End before in their lives, prowl around the neighborhood of the murders talking with frightened women. So long as two men keep together and do not make nuisances of themselves, the police do not interfere with them. But if a man goes off alone and tries to lure a woman off the street into a secluded corner, he is pretty sure to get into trouble.
This was the case of Sir George Arthur of Prince Wales set. He put on an old coat and slouch hat and went to Whitechapel for a little fun. He got it. It occurred to two policemen that Sir George answered very much to the description of Jack The Ripper and they watched him and when they saw him talking with a woman they collared him. He protested and threatened them with the vengeance of the royal wrath, but in vain. Finally a chance was given him to send to a fashionable West End Club and prove his identity and he was released with profuse apologies for the mistake. The affair was kept out of the newspaper, but the jolly young baronets at the Brooks Club considered the joke too good to keep quiet.
Another arrest was a man who gave the name of Dr. Kumbelty of New York. The police could not hold him on suspicion of the Whitechapel crimes, but he has been committed for trial, under a 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 from New York and that he has been in the habit of crossing the ocean twice a year for several years.
A score of men have been arrested by the police this week on suspicion, but the right man still roams at large and everybody is momentarily expecting to hear of another victim.
The large sums offered by private individualsas rewards have induced hundreds of amateur detectives to take a hand in the chase, but to no avail.
Leon Rothschild has offered an income of 2 pounds a week for life for the man who gives the information leading to the arrest and conviction of the assassin.


I don’t get it Trevor; the very same New York World Cable, where their Chief London correspondent, Tracy Greaves, reported on Tumblety first being arrest on suspicion, was the only report about Sir George Arthur also being arrested on suspicion. You whole-heartedly believe this discovery of Greaves, yet you whole-heartedly reject the other. How do I know this? Your own article:


“On 30 November 1888, the Wrexham advertiser, Clwyd, Wales, Britain, also published the story, but withheld Sir George Arthur’s name. Wild coincidences aside, Tumblety seems to have appropriated it, complete with slouch had, for himself. His story would appear to have been an elaborate fiction.” (Lost at Sea, p. 44, Rip 127)


So, how can I accept your interpretation of events when you clearly show bias against Tumblety as a Ripper suspect?

The only elephant in the room is the one in your head mushing you powers of comprehension.

Out of magistrates jurisdiction means offences triable at a higher court.

Just as a matter of interest when does your home leave run out ?

[Chris]

Also contained in this official document is evidence to suggest that Tumblety had not been granted earlier bail at a Police Court, for two other persons on trial during the Old Bailey December Sessions—Jane Levy and Arthur Andrew Cottee—are noted as having been "Bailed at Police Court".

No such notation appears in the entry for Tumblety

So what? You've been given examples over and over again of people who have been bailed without it being mentioned in the calendar. You seem to understand at the time, but invariably you're back a day or two later with a non sequitur like the above.

[mklhawley]

No I am not going to step aside I am going to put one final nail in yours and Tumbetys coffin with one major issue not previously discussed.

This relates to why there was no publicity surrounding Tumblety and his arrest at the time and up to his absconding. For the answer to this we have to go back to the judicial system which again is irrefutable.This relates to his committal where under normal circumstance the press would be present however in his case that may not have been the case and I quote from the legislation

"In cases which fell outside a magistrate's summary jurisdiction [cases upon which he could pass sentence] "The room in which the examination (Committal Proceedings) is held is not to be deemed an open court; and the magistrate may exclude any person if he thinks fit." [11 & 12 Vict. c. 42, s. 19, Indictable Offences Act, 1848].

Press excluded !

Or, "In cases which fell outside of a magistrate's summary jurisdiction..." just as Stewart Evans pointed out, the November 7 arrest was outside of the magistrate's jurisdiction.

But again, Trevor, you're ignoring the elephant in the room:


BOSTON GLOBE, November 18,1888

DOING WHITECHAPEL
TWO ARRESTS ON SUSPICION MADE YESTERDAY.
ONE A CHUM OF THE PRINCE OF WALES AND THE OTHER AN AMERICAN PHYSICIAN.

London, Nov. 17-

Just think of it ! One of the Prince of Wales' own exclusives, a member of his household and cavalry and one of the best known swells about town who glory in the glamor of the Guelphs, getting into custody on suspicion of being the Whitechapel murderer. It is the talk of all clubdom tonight.
Just now it is a fashionable fad to slum it in Whitechapel and every night scores of young men who have never been in the East End before in their lives, prowl around the neighborhood of the murders talking with frightened women. So long as two men keep together and do not make nuisances of themselves, the police do not interfere with them. But if a man goes off alone and tries to lure a woman off the street into a secluded corner, he is pretty sure to get into trouble.
This was the case of Sir George Arthur of Prince Wales set. He put on an old coat and slouch hat and went to Whitechapel for a little fun. He got it. It occurred to two policemen that Sir George answered very much to the description of Jack The Ripper and they watched him and when they saw him talking with a woman they collared him. He protested and threatened them with the vengeance of the royal wrath, but in vain. Finally a chance was given him to send to a fashionable West End Club and prove his identity and he was released with profuse apologies for the mistake. The affair was kept out of the newspaper, but the jolly young baronets at the Brooks Club considered the joke too good to keep quiet.
Another arrest was a man who gave the name of Dr. Kumbelty of New York. The police could not hold him on suspicion of the Whitechapel crimes, but he has been committed for trial, under a 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 from New York and that he has been in the habit of crossing the ocean twice a year for several years.
A score of men have been arrested by the police this week on suspicion, but the right man still roams at large and everybody is momentarily expecting to hear of another victim.
The large sums offered by private individualsas rewards have induced hundreds of amateur detectives to take a hand in the chase, but to no avail.
Leon Rothschild has offered an income of 2 pounds a week for life for the man who gives the information leading to the arrest and conviction of the assassin.


I don’t get it Trevor; the very same New York World Cable, where their Chief London correspondent, Tracy Greaves, reported on Tumblety first being arrest on suspicion, was the only report about Sir George Arthur also being arrested on suspicion. You whole-heartedly believe this discovery of Greaves, yet you whole-heartedly reject the other. How do I know this? Your own article:


“On 30 November 1888, the Wrexham advertiser, Clwyd, Wales, Britain, also published the story, but withheld Sir George Arthur’s name. Wild coincidences aside, Tumblety seems to have appropriated it, complete with slouch had, for himself. His story would appear to have been an elaborate fiction.” (Lost at Sea, p. 44, Rip 127)


So, how can I accept your interpretation of events when you clearly show bias against Tumblety as a Ripper suspect?

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor, don't ignore the huge elephant in the room. You have completely rejected Tumblety arrested on suspicion, but you have completely accepted the Sir George Arthur story. There's no way around it, bias against Tumblety as a Ripper suspect.

But, if you properly reject the Sir George Arthur story and go against what you wrote, you're going agianst Simon. He did help you with your Lost at Sea article didn't he? I recall Simon arguing against Tumblety's slouch hat with the Arthur story in the past.

If you accept the Sir George Arthur story, then you're saying Greaves got it right, even though it was not in the British papers (an argument you used in the past against Tumblety), so then you must accept Greaves got it right with the Tumblety being first arrested on suspicion.

Sorry Trevor. Are you going to try and side step again?

Mike

No I am not going to step aside I am going to put one final nail in yours and Tumbetys coffin with one major issue not previously discussed.

This relates to why there was no publicity surrounding Tumblety and his arrest at the time and up to his absconding. For the answer to this we have to go back to the judicial system which again is irrefutable.This relates to his committal where under normal circumstance the press would be present however in his case that may not have been the case and I quote from the legislation

"In cases which fell outside a magistrate's summary jurisdiction [cases upon which he could pass sentence] "The room in which the examination (Committal Proceedings) is held is not to be deemed an open court; and the magistrate may exclude any person if he thinks fit." [11 & 12 Vict. c. 42, s. 19, Indictable Offences Act, 1848].

Press excluded !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

So you know fully the grounds of arrest? Not charge, arrest.

No warrant was required from the courts if the offence was indecent exposure, which came under Vagrancy act.

Monty

But like the others had to be found committing !!!!!!

[Monty]

The grounds were sufficient for a magistrate to issue them with an arrest warrant, and having been arrested they must have had the evidence to charge otherwise there would have been no point in arresting him.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

So you know fully the grounds of arrest? Not charge, arrest.

No warrant was required from the courts if the offence was indecent exposure, which came under Vagrancy act.

Monty

[mklhawley]

Trevor, don't ignore the huge elephant in the room. You have completely rejected Tumblety arrested on suspicion, but you have completely accepted the Sir George Arthur story. There's no way around it, bias against Tumblety as a Ripper suspect.

But, if you properly reject the Sir George Arthur story and go against what you wrote, you're going agianst Simon. He did help you with your Lost at Sea article didn't he? I recall Simon arguing against Tumblety's slouch hat with the Arthur story in the past.

If you accept the Sir George Arthur story, then you're saying Greaves got it right, even though it was not in the British papers (an argument you used in the past against Tumblety), so then you must accept Greaves got it right with the Tumblety being first arrested on suspicion.

Sorry Trevor. Are you going to try and side step again?

Mike