Was Tumblety in Jail during the Kelly Murder?

[Jonathan H]

But they are not correct, Trevor. Not in this case.

You have it the wrong way round, because you are trying to argue a logical absurdity.

Dr. Tumblety could not have been in prison at the time of the Kelly murder as it would have cleared him-- re: being a Ripper suspect.

All of the surviving primary sources we have show that the Irish-American was not cleared, at least not until the McKenzie murder six months later (though with Littlechild apparently never).

For example, Tumblety would have made an absolute meal about the English police if he had been in a cell on Lord Mayor's Day when Mary Kelly was found to have been torn to pieces. He did not use this iron-clad alibi, because he could not use this as it had not happened.

[Trevor Marriott]

Had Tumblety been in custody when Kelly was killed he would have been cleared, and Sir robert Anderson would not have been requesting examples of his handwriting -- as a Ripper suspect-- and not would Inspector Andrews have been doing a background check on this man in Canada.

Nor would Jack Littlechild, in 1913, have assumed that Sims 'Dr D' (actually a disguised Druitt) was whom the famous writer must have been writing about (since 1899) as the paramount police suspect of 1888.

It is a logical absurdity that Tumblety was in custody at that time.

The reason that people believe that Dr T was a prime, police Ripper suspect is because that is what these primary sources tell us, quite plainly.

It is only questioned here--on a Jack the Ripper site?!?

Interestingly I think that Littlechild was fishing for whom Sims meant, not the other way round (as Sims knew he meant the drowned barrister, whom the ex-chief had never heard of, did not even know of Macnaghten's involvement). That this was the ex-chief's second attempt:

'I was pleased to receive your letter which I shall put away in 'good company' to read again, perhaps some day when old age overtakes me and when to revive memories of the past may be a solace.

Knowing the great interest you take in all matters criminal, and abnormal, I am just going to inflict one more letter on you on the 'Ripper' subject. Letters as a rule are only a nuisance when they call for a reply but this does not need one. I will try and be brief.'

I think he did hope for a reply, in vain.

Tumblety could not have been cleared at the time of his arrest because he was never a ripper suspect. You show me something that at the time of his arrest says he was a ripper suspect AT THE TIME !

Let me explain further if Tumblety had been given bail on Nov 7th how would he have managed to secure two sureties in such a short time when it plainly states that where sureties are offered up the police or court have to have at least 24 hours in which to verify the sureties.

Secondly the first mention of sureties is on Nov 13th now that is a significant date as it was normal practice to remand someone in custody for up to 7 days. Now my maths 7 days from Nov 7th takes us to Nov 13th.

Thirdly if he had been bailed on Nov 7th why didn't he abscond then why did he wait till after his appearance on Nov 13th and then go?

Fourthly if he had been bailed with sureties on Nov 7th then the records would show that on Nov 13th bail was extended with the sureties and not granted.

You need to stick to the facts surrounding his arrest and the police and court procedures because if they are correct all the rest is academic

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Jonathan H]

Had Tumblety been in custody when Kelly was killed he would have been cleared, and Sir robert Anderson would not have been requesting examples of his handwriting -- as a Ripper suspect-- and not would Inspector Andrews have been doing a background check on this man in Canada.

Nor would Jack Littlechild, in 1913, have assumed that Sims 'Dr D' (actually a disguised Druitt) was whom the famous writer must have been writing about (since 1899) as the paramount police suspect of 1888.

It is a logical absurdity that Tumblety was in custody at that time.

The reason that people believe that Dr T was a prime, police Ripper suspect is because that is what these primary sources tell us, quite plainly.

It is only questioned here--on a Jack the Ripper site?!?

Interestingly I think that Littlechild was fishing for whom Sims meant, not the other way round (as Sims knew he meant the drowned barrister, whom the ex-chief had never heard of, did not even know of Macnaghten's involvement). That this was the ex-chief's second attempt:

'I was pleased to receive your letter which I shall put away in 'good company' to read again, perhaps some day when old age overtakes me and when to revive memories of the past may be a solace.

Knowing the great interest you take in all matters criminal, and abnormal, I am just going to inflict one more letter on you on the 'Ripper' subject. Letters as a rule are only a nuisance when they call for a reply but this does not need one. I will try and be brief.'

I think he did hope for a reply, in vain.

[Trevor Marriott]

Having researched Tumblety myself for some time, I'm quite convinced he had nothing to do with the Ripper murders, but it's equally clear that London police had him in their sights, perhaps as early as July of 1888. The fact that officers were able to identify, by name and date, four young men allegedly assaulted by Tumblety between July and November of that year, suggests that he was under at least periodic surveillance during that period. Officers likely observed the alleged offenses and discretely interviewed the four men afterward, securing their cooperation as witnesses against him. [Similar tactics were used by detectives in the Cleveland Street case.] The fact Tumblety wasn't arrested earlier suggests the surveillance was probably related to more than suspicion of moral offenses, for example his supposed connection with Fennian causes and/or as a Ripper suspect, as now seems likely.

Incidentally, Tumblety did not frighten easily. Physically he was a large man, over six feet, and there is ample evidence of his willingness to venture into rough areas after dark and defend himself if necessary. He wasn't afraid of police or going to court either, as his well-publicized scrapes with the law in America will attest. His quick departure from London was occasioned by the realization that he would likely go to jail on the morals charges - not because he feared prosecution as the Ripper.

John

You are right the police did have him under surveillance between July and November. He was only arrested for the gross indecency offences, which would have been under a warrant issued by the court for these type of offences.

He was arrested on Nov 7th the day before Kellys murder and charged with 4 offences, one of which was the date of the Nicholls murder, so that's a major factor in ruling him out for her murder, although I accept we do not know the full extent of the surveillance in relation to hours where he was monitored. The arrest suggest that the police had by this time built up a file on him, and I suggest this is the file referred to by Littlechild and not a file on him being the Ripper

There is not one scrap of anything to suggest he was at the time of his arrest suspected of being the ripper, or he was ever interviewed about the ripper crimes. This is nothing more than conjecture by those who see to prop him up as a viable suspect.

Having been charged with these serious offences on Nov 7th the police would have to had considered what to do with him, bail him to a court for committal proceedings or remand him in custody to the next court for committal proceedings.

The decision was to remand him in custody because he was likely to abscond having regards to his circumstances and the fact that if convicted he would likely as not be sentenced to a lengthy term of imprisonment.

On Nov 13th he persuaded a magistrate to grant him bail having produced two sureties and he himself no doubt having to enter into a surety. Following this he did abscond, so the police were right to have kept him in custody initially

So he was in custody when Kelly was murdered

Was he JTR? Never in a month of black puddings !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Dr. John Watson]

I have to wonder, if in order to clear himself as a Ripper suspect, he was basically forced to admit his homosexual activities and provide the police with the names of the men he was with on those nights if indeed that was his alibi.

c.d.

Hello c.d. Tumblety wasn't the type to be forced into anything, and the idea of this man ever admitting wrongdoing for any reason, especially to police or the court, is almost unthinkable. His ego simply wouldn't allow that. His usual response to accusations of any kind was to exhibit outrage that his honesty or character could possibly be questioned. He was a polished actor and amazingly adept at turning things around to suggest his accusers were to blame, not him. In one case where he was accused of lifting some fellow's wallet, the arresting officer ended up being charged instead! As far as the four alleged victims in London, my guess is they were casual pickups, and Tumblety probably never knew their names or where they lived.

John

[Paddy Goose]

I believe that quote has been taken out of context when one considers the letter as a whole and what he was apparently responding to.

Hi Hunter, Littlechild wrote:

"Knowing the great interest you take in all matters criminal, and abnormal, I am just going to inflict one more letter on you on the 'Ripper' subject."

He was apparently responding to a question about a Dr. D. on the "Ripper" subject. Instead he states a Dr. T, Tumblety. On the 'Ripper' subject.

I fail to see how the quote is taken out of context, which was the 'Ripper' subject. But I would be interested to hear your explanation of how you consider the letter as a whole and how that part has apparently been taken out of context and why exactly.

[Hunter]

I understand what Stewart believes. There is no one in this field whom I respect more, nor do I take for granted the enormous contributions he's made.

It is still an incorrect interpretation.

[mklhawley]

With all due respect, I believe that quote has been taken out of context when one considers the letter as a whole and what he was apparently responding to.

Hi Hunter,

Stewart Evans disagrees with you, too. I purposely presented the letter in whole to twenty graduate-educated participants and all twenty agreed with Stewart Evans. I published some of this on Casebook.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Hunter]

Hi Hunter,

Littlechild stated in his letter, "I never heard of a Dr D. in connection with the Whitechapel murders but amongst the suspects, and to my mind a very likely one, was a Dr. T..." To his mind, he was not a likely suspect, but a very likely suspect. This is what I was referring to.

With all due respect, I believe that quote has been taken out of context when one considers the letter as a whole and what he was apparently responding to.

[mklhawley]

Hi C.D

I agree with that, how would the police know otherwise? It was a criminal offence after all and not something that Tumblety would want to broadcast unless it involved clearing his name perhaps.

Tumblety already had a record in Scotland Yard, and in it was a case involving a young boy a few years earlier, clearly gross indecency. He was released for that case. I'm sure there was more in that file, since Littlechild called it extensive.

Per the London correspondent, Tumblety was first arrested on suspicion, just like multitudes of others on the streets. They didn't know who he was, yet. Once they had him, they searched his pockets and found his letters stating Francis Tumblety, MD. They spent a day or so confirming this information, which was normal procedure. They went to his residence (I have an article on this). It was most likely at this time they perused Tumblety's record held at Scotland Yard, where Littlechild hung out. Keep in mind which department Littlechild headed. The London correspondent stated they didn't have enough on him for the Ripper murders so they decided to 'hold' him on gross indecency, hence, the arrest on November 7.

He knew they had nothing on him specific to the Ripper charges, because they had nothing on everyone. No one saw the murders. I see Scotland Yard deciding to hold him on gross indecency once they realized what was in his record, then hopefully incarcerating him (and if the murders stopped, then maybe they got their man). Scotland Yard knew darn well when he was with the four young men, which didn't deter Assistant Commissioner Anderson from getting involved and personally solicit US chiefs of police for information on Ripper suspect, Francis Tumblety (AFTER the information was known about the four young men).

Sincerely,

Mike

[mklhawley]

I have to wonder, if in order to clear himself as a Ripper suspect, he was basically forced to admit his homosexual activities and provide the police with the names of the men he was with on those nights if indeed that was his alibi.

c.d.

Hi c.d.,

I read the evidence that he denied both.

Mike

[mklhawley]

Just for a bit of clarity... Littlechild was convinced of what exactly?

Sorry about not participating in the discussion. Just got home.

Hi Hunter,

Littlechild stated in his letter, "I never heard of a Dr D. in connection with the Whitechapel murders but amongst the suspects, and to my mind a very likely one, was a Dr. T..." To his mind, he was not a likely suspect, but a very likely suspect. This is what I was referring to.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Natasha]

Maybe he was caught with his pants down, so the speak.

Or he was the one who someone else dobbed in to get off something.

Yeah I guess that's possible

[GUT]

Hi C.D

I agree with that, how would the police know otherwise? It was a criminal offence after all and not something that Tumblety would want to broadcast unless it involved clearing his name perhaps.

Maybe he was caught with his pants down, so the speak.

Or he was the one who someone else dobbed in to get off something.

[Natasha]

Hello Natasha,

I think we could basically ask that same question of any suspect and all we would be able to do is speculate as to the answer.

c.d.

Hi C.D

That is true, but Mike says he sees 2 reasons as a possible motive. I don't really believe that Tumblety was the ripper.