Was Tumblety in Jail during the Kelly Murder?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mike,

You make me smile.

Regards,

Simon

[Dr. John Watson]

I don't know about British customs re bail, police court, etc., but as a former officer I can state that undercover police almost certainly had Tumblety under surveillance for a period of time, either as a suspect in the Ripper murders or for possible subversive activities. During this period, they likely observed him picking up young men and going off with them. The young men were quickly identified, privately interviewed and their statements taken. Rather than tip off Tumblety that he was being tailed, they waited, hoping for enough evidence to arrest him on a more serious charge. They eventually pulled him in and tried to hold him as a Ripper suspect, and when he didn't confess, had to let him go. But to keep him off the streets, they arrested him on the indecency charges. When Tumblety skipped out and returned to America, he willingly spoke about his "arrest" as a Ripper suspect, for which there was no evidence, primarily to deflect questions about the indecency charges, for which there was considerable supporting evidence and publication of which could ruin him professionally in the U.S.

One more thing: For what it's worth, there isn't a chance in a million that Tumblety was Jack the Ripper. His age and physical description alone would rule that out, not to mention the fact that aside from a brief fistfight with a man who had insulted him, he never showed the slightest inclination toward violence, especially against women who, incidently, often were his greatest source of income in the U.S.

Retired Copper John

[Roy Corduroy]

undercover police almost certainly had Tumblety under surveillance for a period of time, either as a suspect in the Ripper murders or for possible subversive activities.

there isn't a chance in a million that Tumblety was Jack the Ripper. His age and physical description alone would rule that out,

Good evening John,

If his age and physical description ruled him out as a suspect in the Ripper murders, why would the undercover police have him under surveillance for that?

Roy

[Trevor Marriott]

I don't know about British customs re bail, police court, etc., but as a former officer I can state that undercover police almost certainly had Tumblety under surveillance for a period of time, either as a suspect in the Ripper murders or for possible subversive activities. During this period, they likely observed him picking up young men and going off with them. The young men were quickly identified, privately interviewed and their statements taken. Rather than tip off Tumblety that he was being tailed, they waited, hoping for enough evidence to arrest him on a more serious charge. They eventually pulled him in and tried to hold him as a Ripper suspect, and when he didn't confess, had to let him go. But to keep him off the streets, they arrested him on the indecency charges. When Tumblety skipped out and returned to America, he willingly spoke about his "arrest" as a Ripper suspect, for which there was no evidence, primarily to deflect questions about the indecency charges, for which there was considerable supporting evidence and publication of which could ruin him professionally in the U.S.

One more thing: For what it's worth, there isn't a chance in a million that Tumblety was Jack the Ripper. His age and physical description alone would rule that out, not to mention the fact that aside from a brief fistfight with a man who had insulted him, he never showed the slightest inclination toward violence, especially against women who, incidently, often were his greatest source of income in the U.S.

Retired Copper John

Hi John
Perhaps you would be so kind as to advance you claim that Tumblety was under surveilance for thr Whitechapel murder. The reason i ask is that it would seem that he was under surveillance from July until November.

The first murder was possibly Tabram August 7th and thefeafter three more at different dates one on which was on a date when he committed a gross indeceny offence. If he had been under surveillance for the murders I think at some time between then they would have had some evidence to arrest him long before Nov 7th if in fact he was the killer.

I should also point out that in 1888 the police did not conduct formal interviews on persons arrested. So anyone arrested was done so by there being enough evidence against at then at the time. or evidence gathered shortly after their arrest following a recent incident. The arresting officer would then then have to satisfy the station Sgt or Inspector that there was enough evidence for a prima facie case for them to be formally charged. If there was not then they were released (discharged)

Fo arrests with warrant it would have been for the police to satisfy the magistrate with enough evidence for a prima facie case for him to issue the warrant.

This is an important issue for researchers to take on board not just with Tumblety but with regards to other suspects and the suggestions that other were arrested and interviewed.

[Monty]

By formally interviewed you mean?

Monty

[Dr. John Watson]

Hi John
Perhaps you would be so kind as to advance you claim that Tumblety was under surveilance for thr Whitechapel murder. The reason i ask is that it would seem that he was under surveillance from July until November.

Hello Trevor! I'm not familiar with what the Brits were doing in 1888, and I can't say whether he was under surveillance 24/7 for a full five months, but I do state the police almost certainly had him under surveillance for various time periods over several weeks probably, either as a Ripper suspect or as a subversive, or both.

I should also point out that in 1888 the police did not conduct formal interviews on persons arrested. So anyone arrested was done so by there being enough evidence against at then at the time. or evidence gathered shortly after their arrest following a recent incident. The arresting officer would then then have to satisfy the station Sgt or Inspector that there was enough evidence for a prima facie case for them to be formally charged. If there was not then they were released (discharged)

I don't believe the officers ever intended to bring formal charges against the young men, nor do I believe they were actually arrested. Presuming the officers were tailing Tumblety, they undoubtedly witnesed enough interaction to at least detain the young men for questioning once they had separated from Tumblety. If an admission was gained, and the possibility of arrest and prosecution understood, an offer would be made to treat them as witnesses against Tumblety rather than defendants, provided they sign a statement implicating him. There would be no need for an arrest or a visit to the station. Such procedures are and were common practice in the States, and there is good evidence London police did the same. I refer to the Wilde prosecution and the Cleveland Street prosecutions, both of which relied on statements from the uncharged rent boys.

This is an important issue for researchers to take on board not just with Tumblety but with regards to other suspects and the suggestions that other were arrested and interviewed.

Agree, it's important to understand the difference between being detained for questioning and being formally arrested, and I'm sure legal requirements as to probable cause, etc., are different today than they were back then. I will state that I don't believe Tumblety was arrested as a Ripper suspect; I think he was detained at the station for questioning and held until his story could be checked (or until he threatened legal action), at which time he was released.

Regards, John

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello Trevor! I'm not familiar with what the Brits were doing in 1888, and I can't say whether he was under surveillance 24/7 for a full five months, but I do state the police almost certainly had him under surveillance for various time periods over several weeks probably, either as a Ripper suspect or as a subversive, or both.



I don't believe the officers ever intended to bring formal charges against the young men, nor do I believe they were actually arrested. Presuming the officers were tailing Tumblety, they undoubtedly witnesed enough interaction to at least detain the young men for questioning once they had separated from Tumblety. If an admission was gained, and the possibility of arrest and prosecution understood, an offer would be made to treat them as witnesses against Tumblety rather than defendants, provided they sign a statement implicating him. There would be no need for an arrest or a visit to the station. Such procedures are and were common practice in the States, and there is good evidence London police did the same. I refer to the Wilde prosecution and the Cleveland Street prosecutions, both of which relied on statements from the uncharged rent boys.



Agree, it's important to understand the difference between being detained for questioning and being formally arrested, and I'm sure legal requirements as to probable cause, etc., are different today than they were back then. I will state that I don't believe Tumblety was arrested as a Ripper suspect; I think he was detained at the station for questioning and held until his story could be checked (or until he threatened legal action), at which time he was released.

Regards, John

To make the picture clear to both you and other researches

I also refer to Lord Brampton otherwise known as Sir Henry Hawkins and his address to Police Constables in 1882. Lord Brampton was a senior High Court Judge from 1876-1898

Questioning when Permissible

“When a crime has been committed, and you are engaged in endeavoring to discover the author of it, there is no objection to your making inquiries of, or putting questions to, any person from whom you think you can obtain useful information. It is your duty to discover the criminal if you can, and to do this you must make such inquiries, and if in the course of them you should chance to interrogate and to receive answers from a man who turns out to be the criminal himself, and who inculpates himself by these answers, they are nevertheless admissible in evidence, and may be used against him.

When questioning not permissible

When, however, a Constable has a warrant to arrest, or is about to arrest a person on his own authority, or has a person in custody for a crime, it is wrong to question such person touching the crime of which he is accused.

Neither judge, magistrate nor juryman, can interrogate an accused person—unless he tenders himself as a witness, or require him to answer questions tending to incriminate himself. Much less, then, ought a Constable to do so, whose duty as regards that person is simply to arrest and detain him in safe custody.

On arresting a man a Constable ought simply to read his warrant, or tell the accused the nature of the charge upon which he is arrested, leaving it to the person so arrested to say anything or nothing as he pleases.

For a Constable to press any accused person to say anything with reference to the crime of which he is accused is very wrong. It is well also that it should be generally known that if a statement made by an accused person is made under or in consequence of any promise or threat, even though it amounts to an absolute confession, it cannot be used against the person making it.

There is, however, no objection to a Constable listening to any mere voluntary statement which a prisoner desires to make, and repeating such statement in evidence; nor is there any objection to his repeating in evidence any conversation he may have heard between the prisoner and any other person.

But he ought not by anything he says or does, to invite or encourage an accused person to make any statement, without first cautioning him that he is not bound to say anything tending to incriminate himself, and that anything he says may be used against him”

This i think shatter a few theories and reserachers suggestions.

[Dr. John Watson]

Good evening John,

If his age and physical description ruled him out as a suspect in the Ripper murders, why would the undercover police have him under surveillance for that?

Roy

Hello Roy.

That's a good question; I wish we had Tumblety's police file to learn the answer. I recall reading somewhere that someone had connected Tumblety with the "American doctor" looking for uterus specimens, and while he didn't match descriptions of any Ripper suspects, he could have hired someone to do the dirty work. There is also the possibility he was under surveillance not by the regular police, but by the Special Branch as a supporter of Irish radicals, reference Littlechild's mention of his department having a large file on Tumblety. I've often wondered whether the Special Branch set up the whole case against Tumblety, hoping to use Metropolitan police to either land him in jail or hound him into leaving London.

John

[Dr. John Watson]

To make the picture clear to both you and other researches . . .

This i think shatter a few theories and reserachers suggestions.

Trevor:

I don't see that what I said conflicts in any way with your references. There were no warrants against either Tumblety or his young companions d'amour, nor was anyone formally accused when questioned, thus my scenerios would be perfectly acceptable under British law. Or am I missing something?

Puzzled John

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor:

I don't see that what I said conflicts in any way with your references. There were no warrants against either Tumblety or his young companions d'amour, nor was anyone formally accused when questioned, thus my scenerios would be perfectly acceptable under British law. Or am I missing something?

Puzzled John

Hi John
Perhaps its me.

Tumblety must have been arreested on a warrant for the gross indeceny offences

One of the points raised by several posters is that Tumbley was arrested specifically for the murders, interviewed and then because they had nothing on him for those murders was the re arrested for the gross indeceny offences.

This clearly in my opinion based on the police practices and guidlines never happened.

The second part of these posters suggestions is that after being arrested for the murders he was released on police bail to reappear at a date and time thereafter. He then failed to appear and a warrant was issued. This clearly has also proved to be wrong.

After all of that these posters now change the goaplosts by completely disregarding the above theories and now are clinging to a misguided belief that Tumblety was bailed by the magistrate on Nov 7th.

[Bridewell]

Somebody please tell me where the British police have, or ever have had, the power to "detain someone for questioning" without arrest. If you have "detained someone for questioning" you have arrested them.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Trevor Marriott]

Somebody please tell me where the British police have, or ever have had, the power to "detain someone for questioning" without arrest. If you have "detained someone for questioning" you have arrested them.

Regards, Bridewell.

You are totally correct

[Roy Corduroy]

posters now change the goaplosts by completely disregarding the above theories and now are clinging to a misguided belief that Tumblety was bailed by the magistrate on Nov 7th.

A concrete example was given. Of someone who was bailed by a magistrate at that place and time. That's not changing the goalposts, it's upping the ante.

Roy

[Trevor Marriott]

A concrete example was given. Of someone who was bailed by a magistrate at that place and time. That's not changing the goalposts, it's upping the ante.

Roy

If thats what you think you are as misguided as others you clearly dont understand the victorian legal system procedures.

[Monty]

To make the picture clear to both you and other researches

I also refer to Lord Brampton otherwise known as Sir Henry Hawkins and his address to Police Constables in 1882. Lord Brampton was a senior High Court Judge from 1876-1898

Questioning when Permissible

“When a crime has been committed, and you are engaged in endeavoring to discover the author of it, there is no objection to your making inquiries of, or putting questions to, any person from whom you think you can obtain useful information. It is your duty to discover the criminal if you can, and to do this you must make such inquiries, and if in the course of them you should chance to interrogate and to receive answers from a man who turns out to be the criminal himself, and who inculpates himself by these answers, they are nevertheless admissible in evidence, and may be used against him.

When questioning not permissible

When, however, a Constable has a warrant to arrest, or is about to arrest a person on his own authority, or has a person in custody for a crime, it is wrong to question such person touching the crime of which he is accused.

Neither judge, magistrate nor juryman, can interrogate an accused person—unless he tenders himself as a witness, or require him to answer questions tending to incriminate himself. Much less, then, ought a Constable to do so, whose duty as regards that person is simply to arrest and detain him in safe custody.

On arresting a man a Constable ought simply to read his warrant, or tell the accused the nature of the charge upon which he is arrested, leaving it to the person so arrested to say anything or nothing as he pleases.

For a Constable to press any accused person to say anything with reference to the crime of which he is accused is very wrong. It is well also that it should be generally known that if a statement made by an accused person is made under or in consequence of any promise or threat, even though it amounts to an absolute confession, it cannot be used against the person making it.

There is, however, no objection to a Constable listening to any mere voluntary statement which a prisoner desires to make, and repeating such statement in evidence; nor is there any objection to his repeating in evidence any conversation he may have heard between the prisoner and any other person.

But he ought not by anything he says or does, to invite or encourage an accused person to make any statement, without first cautioning him that he is not bound to say anything tending to incriminate himself, and that anything he says may be used against him”

This i think shatter a few theories and reserachers suggestions.

And to support the sailent points in Trevors post, this is a City of London Police Order 1891.

Monty