Was Tumblety in Jail during the Kelly Murder?

[Trevor Marriott]

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

Monty

Thank you for that (cheques in the post)

[Monty]

Thank you for that (cheques in the post)

Dont get use to it.

I am just sharing with all, and dispelling the cabal myth at the same time.

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

Dont get use to it.

I am just sharing with all, and dispelling the cabal myth at the same time.

Monty

Cheque torn up

[Monty]

Cheque torn up

It would have bounced anyway.

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

It would have bounced anyway.

Monty

Would i do that to you

[c.d.]

I find it very hard to believe that the police were overly concerned about cases of gross indecency at this time. I think it much more likely that it was a fishing expedition. Once they had him in custody, regardless of the charge, they could ask him the question that was most important to them ...."where were you on the night of ---? Can anyone verify that?"

If Tumblety didn't get that there was more going on than a mere charge of gross indecency, he had to be ten kinds of idiot. He would have to be a complete fool to think that he wasn't being followed by the police after this. To then go out and kill Mary Kelly? Nope.

c.d.

[c.d.]

In the movie "In Cold Blood" (an excellent movie by the way), they arrested Dick and Perry for passing bad checks and violating parole. That enabled the police to question them while withholding the real reason which was suspicion of murder.

c.d.

[Trevor Marriott]

In the movie "In Cold Blood" (an excellent movie by the way), they arrested Dick and Perry for passing bad checks and violating parole. That enabled the police to question them while withholding the real reason which was suspicion of murder.

c.d.

have you not read post 202 ?

[Bridewell]

Agreement With Trevor

You are totally correct

In accordance with the established tradition of this thread, torn-up cheque in the post.

Regards, Bridewell

[c.d.]

have you not read post 202 ?

Yes, I did read post 202 and found it quite confusing. I would interpret it to mean that a suspect is not required to answer questions and that he cannot be forced or threatened to give information. You could also interpret what is written there to mean that the suspect should be brought in but no questions can be asked of him. I guess they are supposed to offer him tea and then just stare at him. That would not seem to make a lot of sense but I admit that I could be reading it wrong.

c.d.

[Trevor Marriott]

In accordance with the established tradition of this thread, torn-up cheque in the post.

Regards, Bridewell

I must desist from this frivolity as I am on an admin final warning and I might get banned for going off topic and I am sure you all wouldnt want that would you ?

[mklhawley]

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 correct Bridewell. They arrested someone WITHOUT A WARRANT, just as they did with Tumblety. Victorian London police could arrest someone on the streets WITHOUT A WARRANT because of what they deemed as suspicious behavior.

Lethbridge News, 10 October 1888
London, Oct. 1. …The police have made no progress in their efforts to establish a clue to the murderer and have further lost public confidence in their efficiency by the fact that persons arrested on suspicion of connection with the tragedy were released today for want of even a scintilla of evidence upon which to justify their retention in custody.

The Irish Times, 11 September 1888
Some six or seven men have been arrested on suspicion, but most of them speedily satisfied the police of their innocence and were released…

Walthamstow and Leyton Guardian, 20 July 1889
At about five o'clock in the morning a man was seen lurking about the scene of the murder, and his movements attracted the suspicion of the police he was arrested and brought to Commercial-street Police Station, where he was searched…

The Daily Telegraph, October 2, 1888
Up to the present about half-a-dozen people have been arrested and released.

And this was in accordance to British Law, as well:

MPA 1839, Section 69: Every person taken into custody by any constable belonging to the Metropolitan Police, without warrant, except persons detained for the mere purpose of ascertaining their name or residence, shall be forthwith delivered into the custody of the constable in charge of the nearest station-house in order that such person may be secured until he can be brought before a magistrate…

Police could take anyone in and justify it by ascertaining their name and residence. Is there any evidence they used this exception. Yes, and it comes from Francis Tumblety’s arrest for the Whitechapel crimes:

San Francisco Chronicle, 18 November 1888
Another arrest was a man who gave the name of Dr. Kumblety of New York. The police could not hold him on suspicion of the Whitechapel crimes, but he will be committed for trial at the Central Criminal Court under the 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...

Sincerely,

Mike

[c.d.]

I have to admit that I am pretty much lost here. Would the police have been allowed to question Tumblety about the charges of gross indecency? Would they have been allowed to question him about the Ripper murders?

c.d.

[mklhawley]

I have to admit that I am pretty much lost here. Would the police have been allowed to question Tumblety about the charges of gross indecency? Would they have been allowed to question him about the Ripper murders?

c.d.

Hi c.d.,

According to the London cable source who questioned the police, Tumblety was arrested on suspicion of the Whitechapel crime just like scores of other men. It seems clear to me he was arrested and questioned about his suspicious behavior on the streets that night. The cable source also makes clear that there was an investigation on him already (it may even have been a file Littlechild's department or just an ongoing gross indecency investigation), and once they realized who they had, for some reason they believed he was significant enough to get him off the streets and pursuse the gross indecency charges. The police had no reason to question him about the gross indecency charges at the time, since they needed to further get statements from the young boys. In view of this, Tumblety was not at all threatened by him being arrested for the Whitechapel crimes (he thought he was merely arrested just like the scores of other men) and for gross indecency.

Sincerely,

Mike

[mklhawley]

Here's my earlier post on the London cable source:

The problem with Trevor’s proposal is that, even though it seems to conform to British Law, it does not fit all of the evidence. I am going to propose an alternative series of events that fits both British Law AND additional evidence. Sir Robert Anderson continuing the Tumblety case after the Kelly murder aside, the evidence I would like to focus on is the London World News cable source, which was reported in the San Francisco Chronicle on November 18, 1888:

San Francisco Chronicle, 18 November 1888,
A Heavy Swell Arrested in Whitechapel.
A Score of Prisoners, but No Clew.
[THE NEW YORK WORLD CABLE SERVICE; COPYRIGHTED, 1888 - SPECIAL TO THE CHRONICLE]
LONDON, November 17.
…Another arrest was a man who gave the name of Dr. Kumblety of New York. The police could not hold him on suspicion of the Whitechapel crimes, but he will be committed for trial at the Central Criminal Court under the 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; that he is from New York, and that he has been in the habit of crossing the ocean twice a year for several years.
A score of other men have been arrested by the police this week on suspicion of being the murderer, but the right man still roams at large…

Why should the cable source be taken more seriously that a mere US newspaper report? The cable source claimed its source was the police, and to confirm this being true, the points of fact given were correct and could only have come from police. “The police say this is the man’s right name as proved by letters in his possession.” All who now know Tumblety’s habits agree he did just this. How would a reporter, who had no idea Tumblety was a murder suspect at all, pull that correct fact out of thin air? There was no time for the reporter to do a background investigation before sending the cable. Just as Trevor stated, the case was in private session, so neither British nor US papers would have known, but once he posted bail on November 16th, the cable source (most likely stationed at Marlborough Street Station, since a New York World correspondent was stationed there, the timing is perfect, and the details of the case are correct) spoke with police about Tumblety and then sent the cable off by November 17th.

Also as I stated earlier, why would the London cable source just make it up about him being arrested on suspicion of the Whitechapel crimes, especially when Littlechild confirmed this and Tumblety admitted it?

Sincerley,

Mike