Tweet
I'll put it to bed, Trevor, by repeating what I once wrote:
Trevor’s claim is that Tumblety was arrested WITH a warrant on November 7th (gross indecency case completed), which required the police by British nineteenth century law to present Tumblety and the gross indecency case to the police court Magistrate, Hannay, on or about that same day. Since there is no evidence that he received ‘bail at police court’, then he was placed on remand and in custody up to his committal to trial at Central Criminal Court one week later on November 14th in front of Hannay, thus, he was in jail during the Kelly murder. Since he was already in custody, there was only one bail assigned, which he eventually paid on November 16th. In view of this, he could not have been offered bail twice and ‘released on his recognizances’ twice (once before committal to trial and once after). It seems to fit British Law, but then Stewart Evans presented a case that must have fit British Law, since it happened. Evans presented the Ginger case –the next case after Tumblety’s- that Ginger did indeed get released on his recognizances twice; once before committal and once after. Joe Chetcuti presented even a second case demonstrating this. Now, that does not mean Tumblety was released on his recognizances twice, so Trevor’s argument is still viable…but as we now know, it does not mean he wasn’t, either.
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?
Revealing inferences in the cable:
1. Tumblety was FIRST arrested for suspicion in the Whitechapel murder and then RE-ARRESTED for the gross indecency case. The cable states that there was not enough evidence to pursue the Whitechapel murder case, which clearly suggests he was ARRESTED WITHOUT A WARRANT, being a suspicious character on the streets of Whitechapel. Notice the cable also stated ‘A score of other men have been arrested…on suspicion…’ The use of ‘other’ connects this sentence with Tumblety. Even though Simon claims Tumblety stole the American slouch hat story from the Sir George Arthur incident, it is a fact that Scotland Yard was interested in lone males wearing American slouch hats throughout the entire previous month of October. Tumblety was picked up for the same reason as Arthur; a lone suspicious male on the streets of Whitechapel wearing clothing connected to a previous theory of who the killer might be. He was arrested without a warrant just like ‘a score of other men’.
2. Since Scotland Yard shifted from a case that they could not yet win, the Whitechapel investigation, to a case that they were more confident in winning, the gross indecency case, we can infer that an investigation (and file) on Tumblety must have already started specific to gross indecency. But why did they not yet bring Tumblety immediately up to the Magistrate for this? Because it was incomplete and they want a solid case.
So taking into account nineteenth century British Law, court and police procedures, and the cable source, the following series of events are presented. Keep in mind; this is not pure conjecture, because it fits the evidence:
On the November 2 weekend, Tumblety was hanging out on the West End in Marborough Street Court jurisdiction, as evidenced by young Doughty’s gross indecency claim of November 2 and that the gross indecency case was eventually in front of the Marlborough Street Court Magistrate. On the evening of the 6th, though, Tumblety was hanging out on the East End Whitechapel streets. Tumblety himself admits that he was hanging out in the Whitechapel Streets and was identified by his hat. Because of him being a lone male on the Whitechapel Streets, wearing an American slouch hat, and probably behaving erratically, he was arrested ‘on suspicion of the Whitechapel murders’ and taken into custody. It was a time that scores of men were taken into custody.
Once they realized who they had –a man they were already investigating in a gross indecency case (or even a Special Branch case) – AND because they had some kind of evidence that made Tumblety a more significant suspect than the scores of ones they merely released the next day, they made the decision to discharge and re-arrest him for gross indecency in order to keep him in their control as long as possible. Again, they could not bring Tumblety to trial for the murders, since no one saw the murders. No one was ever brought to trial for the murders.
Trevor argues about Tumblety either being arrested with or without a warrant but only for the gross indecency case. Tumblety was at the police station when they decided what action to take specific to the gross indecency case. Since he was already in custody and the gross indecency case was not fully complete, they did not want to bring it up to Hannay and commit to trial on November 7th, they needed time to solidify the case. They opted for police bail and had to release him within 24 hours, because he was not going to see the Magistrate. Police bail does not require a Magistrate’s prior approval:
On the court calendar in the ‘when received into custody’ column it states November 7th, because that’s when the detectives officially informed Tumblety of the charges of gross indecency, but they had to release him. At this time, they weren’t required to show Tumblety all of the evidence against him, so Tumblety had no fear, especially when Tumblety could afford the best solicitors and barristers. Thus, Tumblety went in front of Hannay on November 14th from police bail, but then was placed on remand by Hannay until trial.
Sincerely,
Mike
Trevor’s claim is that Tumblety was arrested WITH a warrant on November 7th (gross indecency case completed), which required the police by British nineteenth century law to present Tumblety and the gross indecency case to the police court Magistrate, Hannay, on or about that same day. Since there is no evidence that he received ‘bail at police court’, then he was placed on remand and in custody up to his committal to trial at Central Criminal Court one week later on November 14th in front of Hannay, thus, he was in jail during the Kelly murder. Since he was already in custody, there was only one bail assigned, which he eventually paid on November 16th. In view of this, he could not have been offered bail twice and ‘released on his recognizances’ twice (once before committal to trial and once after). It seems to fit British Law, but then Stewart Evans presented a case that must have fit British Law, since it happened. Evans presented the Ginger case –the next case after Tumblety’s- that Ginger did indeed get released on his recognizances twice; once before committal and once after. Joe Chetcuti presented even a second case demonstrating this. Now, that does not mean Tumblety was released on his recognizances twice, so Trevor’s argument is still viable…but as we now know, it does not mean he wasn’t, either.
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?
Revealing inferences in the cable:
1. Tumblety was FIRST arrested for suspicion in the Whitechapel murder and then RE-ARRESTED for the gross indecency case. The cable states that there was not enough evidence to pursue the Whitechapel murder case, which clearly suggests he was ARRESTED WITHOUT A WARRANT, being a suspicious character on the streets of Whitechapel. Notice the cable also stated ‘A score of other men have been arrested…on suspicion…’ The use of ‘other’ connects this sentence with Tumblety. Even though Simon claims Tumblety stole the American slouch hat story from the Sir George Arthur incident, it is a fact that Scotland Yard was interested in lone males wearing American slouch hats throughout the entire previous month of October. Tumblety was picked up for the same reason as Arthur; a lone suspicious male on the streets of Whitechapel wearing clothing connected to a previous theory of who the killer might be. He was arrested without a warrant just like ‘a score of other men’.
2. Since Scotland Yard shifted from a case that they could not yet win, the Whitechapel investigation, to a case that they were more confident in winning, the gross indecency case, we can infer that an investigation (and file) on Tumblety must have already started specific to gross indecency. But why did they not yet bring Tumblety immediately up to the Magistrate for this? Because it was incomplete and they want a solid case.
So taking into account nineteenth century British Law, court and police procedures, and the cable source, the following series of events are presented. Keep in mind; this is not pure conjecture, because it fits the evidence:
On the November 2 weekend, Tumblety was hanging out on the West End in Marborough Street Court jurisdiction, as evidenced by young Doughty’s gross indecency claim of November 2 and that the gross indecency case was eventually in front of the Marlborough Street Court Magistrate. On the evening of the 6th, though, Tumblety was hanging out on the East End Whitechapel streets. Tumblety himself admits that he was hanging out in the Whitechapel Streets and was identified by his hat. Because of him being a lone male on the Whitechapel Streets, wearing an American slouch hat, and probably behaving erratically, he was arrested ‘on suspicion of the Whitechapel murders’ and taken into custody. It was a time that scores of men were taken into custody.
Once they realized who they had –a man they were already investigating in a gross indecency case (or even a Special Branch case) – AND because they had some kind of evidence that made Tumblety a more significant suspect than the scores of ones they merely released the next day, they made the decision to discharge and re-arrest him for gross indecency in order to keep him in their control as long as possible. Again, they could not bring Tumblety to trial for the murders, since no one saw the murders. No one was ever brought to trial for the murders.
Trevor argues about Tumblety either being arrested with or without a warrant but only for the gross indecency case. Tumblety was at the police station when they decided what action to take specific to the gross indecency case. Since he was already in custody and the gross indecency case was not fully complete, they did not want to bring it up to Hannay and commit to trial on November 7th, they needed time to solidify the case. They opted for police bail and had to release him within 24 hours, because he was not going to see the Magistrate. Police bail does not require a Magistrate’s prior approval:
On the court calendar in the ‘when received into custody’ column it states November 7th, because that’s when the detectives officially informed Tumblety of the charges of gross indecency, but they had to release him. At this time, they weren’t required to show Tumblety all of the evidence against him, so Tumblety had no fear, especially when Tumblety could afford the best solicitors and barristers. Thus, Tumblety went in front of Hannay on November 14th from police bail, but then was placed on remand by Hannay until trial.
Sincerely,
Mike
Comment