Was Tumblety in Jail during the Kelly Murder?

[Hunter]

I am talking about the quote "and to my mind a very likely one," Jonathan and what Littlechild meant by that.

[Hunter]

To read anything less than the above into this breakthrough source found by Stewart P. Evans is projection stimulated by anti-suspect bias, and is why much of the information we do have is misunderstood and misrepresented.

If it came from anyone else but you, I'd think they were kidding. Trying to view and interpret the information at hand without the predilection of a preferred suspect is why much of the information we do have is misunderstood and misrepresented? All of these suspect books presented the information as objectively as possible?

Yep.

[mklhawley]

You show me something that at the time of his arrest says he was a ripper suspect AT THE TIME !

The Brooklyn Citizen,23 November 1888
“Is He The Ripper?” A Brooklynite Charged With the Whitechapel Murders.
Superintendent Campbell Asked by the London Police to Hunt Up the Record of Francis Tumblety

Captain Eason supplies the information and it is interesting Police Superintendent Campbell received a cable dispatch yesterday from Mr Anderson, the deputy chief of the London Police, asking him to make some inquiries about Francis Tumblety, who is under arrest in England on the charge of indecent assault. Tumblety is referred to in the dispatch in the following manner: “He says he is known to you, Chief, as Brooklyn’s Beauty.” Tumblety was arrested in London some weeks ago as the supposed Whitechapel murderer. Since his incarceration in prison he has boasted of how he had succeeded in baffling the police. He also claimed that he was a resident of Brooklyn, and this was what caused the Deputy Chief of Police to communicate with Superintendent Campbell. The superintendent gave the dispatch immediate attention, and through Captain Eason...


AT THE TIME Trevor. Sorry. And it came from the Assistant Commissioner himself. Wouldn't you think the Assistant Commissioner, a man directly involved in the Ripper murder case, would have been the first person to ignore Tumblety as a suspect if he had an iron-clad alibi? Anderson did not expect his private cable dispatch to Campbell was going to be plastered in the papers. He thought it was going to be private, but of course, he had no control of this. Tumblety was first arrested on suspicion - WITHOUT A WARRANT -, just as Stewart Evans explained to you.


Hunter, your refusal to read the Littlechild letter as he meant it to be understood was the reason why I selected multiple non-ripperologist (hence, not subject to preconceived notions and bias) types to read it for themselves.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Hunter]

Hunter, your refusal to read the Littlechild letter as he meant it to be understood was the reason why I selected multiple non-ripperologist (hence, not subject to preconceived notions and bias) types to read it for themselves.

I read it as he meant it to be understood. That is your unfounded accusation that I didn't.

What background information did you provide to these non-ripperologists?

[Trevor Marriott]

The Brooklyn Citizen,23 November 1888
“Is He The Ripper?” A Brooklynite Charged With the Whitechapel Murders.
Superintendent Campbell Asked by the London Police to Hunt Up the Record of Francis Tumblety

Captain Eason supplies the information and it is interesting Police Superintendent Campbell received a cable dispatch yesterday from Mr Anderson, the deputy chief of the London Police, asking him to make some inquiries about Francis Tumblety, who is under arrest in England on the charge of indecent assault. Tumblety is referred to in the dispatch in the following manner: “He says he is known to you, Chief, as Brooklyn’s Beauty.” Tumblety was arrested in London some weeks ago as the supposed Whitechapel murderer. Since his incarceration in prison he has boasted of how he had succeeded in baffling the police. He also claimed that he was a resident of Brooklyn, and this was what caused the Deputy Chief of Police to communicate with Superintendent Campbell. The superintendent gave the dispatch immediate attention, and through Captain Eason...


AT THE TIME Trevor. Sorry. And it came from the Assistant Commissioner himself. Wouldn't you think the Assistant Commissioner, a man directly involved in the Ripper murder case, would have been the first person to ignore Tumblety as a suspect if he had an iron-clad alibi? Anderson did not expect his private cable dispatch to Campbell was going to be plastered in the papers. He thought it was going to be private, but of course, he had no control of this. Tumblety was first arrested on suspicion - WITHOUT A WARRANT -, just as Stewart Evans explained to you.


Hunter, your refusal to read the Littlechild letter as he meant it to be understood was the reason why I selected multiple non-ripperologist (hence, not subject to preconceived notions and bias) types to read it for themselves.

Sincerely,

Mike

At the time as in at the time of his arrest and whilst still in custody

Not after the event !

[mklhawley]

At the time as in at the time of his arrest and whilst still in custody

Not after the event !

Moving the goal posts, eh Trevor. Scotland Yard clearly wanted to keep the Tumblety affair under wraps, as evidenced by Anderson's tight lips and even Logan's comments in 1928, soooo you're expecting a completely transparent series of events over a century later? Assistant Commissioner Anderson was certainly involved AT THE TIME of the arrest and a week or so later (even Littlechild's comments corroborate this), he solicits information on Ripper suspect Tumblety. So by inference, we have evidence at the time of the arrest. Sorry Trevor.

Mike

[Trevor Marriott]

Moving the goal posts, eh Trevor. Scotland Yard clearly wanted to keep the Tumblety affair under wraps, as evidenced by Anderson's tight lips and even Logan's comments in 1928, soooo you're expecting a completely transparent series of events over a century later? Assistant Commissioner Anderson was certainly involved AT THE TIME of the arrest and a week or so later (even Littlechild's comments corroborate this), he solicits information on Ripper suspect Tumblety. So by inference, we have evidence at the time of the arrest. Sorry Trevor.

Mike

You are relying on secondary evidence from newspapers which we know in unsafe.

I am expecting you or anyone else for that matter to produce evidence to show Tumblety was suspected of being the killer at the time of his arrest, or before, and to show what that evidence there was to make him a suspect, With that in mind may I refer you to the police codes back then with regards to arrest and what happens thereafter

"Any statement by the prisoner at the time of arrest or afterwards should be carefully noted down as soon as possible in the very words used. No questions should be put to a person after he has been arrested, or indeed after it has been decided to arrest him, except such as may be necessary to ascertain whether he is the person wanted"

So what would be the point in arresting a person on suspicion if there was no evidence to support the suspicion or to bring a charge thereafter? The station sergeant would simply refuse to accept the arrest, or he give the officer a few hours to come up with some evidence.

I have no doubt the police got round this by what is known as "The Ways and Means Act" that would be by asking a person to accompany them to a police station, this would then not preclude them asking questions. However once they were satisfied that the person they were questioning was responsible for an offence the questioning had to stop, and that person would have been arrested.

Even if they did this with Tumblety they would still have to have arrested him for the gross indecency offences for which a warrant would have been required. They already had the warrant

So it all points to the fact that when Tumblety was arrested on NOV 7th it was for the indecency offences only, for which they had enough evidence already to hand to charge him without the need to question him,

Now please be kind enough to answer the questions without posting extracts from newspapers.


www.trevormarriott.co.

[Batman]

Are we seriously arguing if Tumblety was an official Ripper suspect?

I think the question is not if Tumblety was a Ripper suspect, but if a ripper suspect was in jail during MJKs murder, why are they still interested in him after that murder as a ripper suspect?

The answer is nobody had the evidence to connect anyone to the Whitechapel murders... or didn't make the connection and he obviously wasn't in jail at the time if they are on still the hunt for him.

It doesn't mean Tumblety is JtR. It just means his arrest near the time of the MJK murder doesn't have the degree of removing Tumblety as a JtR suspect when seen in the context of everything else.

[mklhawley]

You are relying on secondary evidence from newspapers which we know in unsafe.

...and therefore one must believe the opposite - says Trevor.

Really, Trevor, you should read my Yellow Journalism article and Tumblety Over the Wire article. The 'Anderson contacting Campbell' source was none other than the Associated Press, an organization purposely avoiding sensationalism and inaccuracies. Keep in mind, the daily US newspapers hated each other and would have loved to embarrass their competitors by revealing misinformation published by them.

...and then they were corroborated by the British papers (or were they involved in the conspiracy of misinformation, also?).

Lastly, not only do these separate newspaper sources corroborate each other, they're corroborated by Littlechild's and Logan's statements.

So, are you claiming that Assistant Commissioner Anderson did not request information from Superintendent Campbell a week or so after? Are you claiming the Associated Press made it up? Ridiculous.

Mike

[David Orsam]

"Any statement by the prisoner at the time of arrest or afterwards should be carefully noted down as soon as possible in the very words used. No questions should be put to a person after he has been arrested, or indeed after it has been decided to arrest him, except such as may be necessary to ascertain whether he is the person wanted"

So what would be the point in arresting a person on suspicion if there was no evidence to support the suspicion or to bring a charge thereafter?

Wouldn't it be for the same reason John Pizer was arrested? For example, to put him up for identification?

[Batman]

Wouldn't it be for the same reason John Pizer was arrested? For example, to put him up for identification?

That's interesting because if Schwartz & Lewende had been brought in to have a look at him, they must have cleared him.

[David Orsam]

That's interesting because if Schwartz & Lewende had been brought in to have a look at him, they must have cleared him.

That, of course, is not necessarily true. They might not have been able to make a positive identification. With Pizer, it seems that one of the witnesses did identify him (as someone who attacked a woman in Hanbury Street) but his identification was subsequently discredited.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Brooklyn Standard-Union, 23rd November 1888—

" . . . the London Police are evidently doing their level best to fasten the Whitechapel murders upon Dr. F. T. Tumblety."

Regrettably this did not involve Scotland Yard keeping Tumblety under surveillance, confiscating his passport, preventing him leaving the country or boarding a ship at Le Havre.

Regards,

Simon

[Batman]

That, of course, is not necessarily true. They might not have been able to make a positive identification. With Pizer, it seems that one of the witnesses did identify him (as someone who attacked a woman in Hanbury Street) but his identification was subsequently discredited.

The investigators felt confident that they had a witness and they used him all the way to Sadler though.

[David Orsam]

The investigators felt confident that they had a witness and they used him all the way to Sadler though.

They might have done but that doesn't mean that such witness is going to be able to make a positive identification when confronted with the murderer (or a negative one when confronted with an innocent man).