Was Tumblety in Jail during the Kelly Murder?

[The Good Michael]

Many thanks for that and please thank Joe for his response as well. So we can deduce that as far as is currently known, the "large file on Tumblety" is not in the Library of Congress amongst the exhaustive Pinkerton papers.

I think it's called the "large" file because it's 17 X 23 inches. There are no pages in it.

Mike

[Amanda]

Exciting....

Hello Mike,

Many thanks for that and please thank Joe for his response as well. So we can deduce that as far as is currently known, the "large file on Tumblety" is not in the Library of Congress amongst the exhaustive Pinkerton papers.

Thank you for your help.



Phil

Hi Phil,
I've also read through the list of contents in the Pinkerton container now & can't find anything that could remotely refer to either Tumblety or Whitechapel.

I guess it's a matter of looking somewhere else, any ideas?
Amanda

[mklhawley]

Hi Phil,
I've also read through the list of contents in the Pinkerton container now & can't find anything that could remotely refer to either Tumblety or Whitechapel.

I guess it's a matter of looking somewhere else, any ideas?
Amanda

But we have on record Pinkertons indeed helping out Scotland Yard on the Ripper case (on a different suspect)...yet it has not been found in their records.

Point: Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence for absence.

Did the Pinkertons discuss with Scotland Yard Tumblety the Ripper suspect. We actually do have evidence of this, and it also suggests why the Pinkertons would not have had a dedicated file on Tumblety the Ripper suspect. When Inspector Andrews was asked by reporters in December 1888 (while in Canada) about who is assisting them in American on the Ripper case – specifically for Francis Tumblety – he stated,

“American detective agencies have offered to find the murderer on salaries and payment of expenses. But we can do that ourselves, you know.”

The largest 'American detective agency' were the Pinkertons who had a very close relationship with Scotland Yard. William Pinkerton was in Scotland Yard in August, but being there so early in the Ripper case, at a time they were even unsure it was a murder spree, it was most likely not for that reason.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=mklhawley;326859]But we have on record Pinkertons indeed helping out Scotland Yard on the Ripper case (on a different suspect)...yet it has not been found in their records.

Not from another one of your primary newspaper sources I hope !

[mklhawley]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;326862]

But we have on record Pinkertons indeed helping out Scotland Yard on the Ripper case (on a different suspect)...yet it has not been found in their records.

Not from another one of your primary newspaper sources I hope !

Hi Trevor! Tell me someone else who doesn't believe Andrews' spoke with the press and stated this. You won't find one. Why? Because your belief that 'if it's written in the paper, it's automatically wrong', shows why your arguments are weak. Besides, aren't you supposed to believe the Sir George Arthur case is completely bogus?

[David Orsam]

Having looked at the relevant original documents, and having now re-read this entire thread to grapple with the points made, it seems to me that there is no reason relating to procedure why Tumblety could not have been bailed by the magistrate at Marlborough Street on 7 November, returned to Marlborough Street on 14 November to be committed for trial with amended bail conditions and remanded in custody until sureties produced - which were produced at Marlborough Street on 16 November - at which point he was remanded again on bail to take his trial at the Central Criminal Court on 19/20 November. There may be arguments why this was unlikely, which may or may not be good ones, but no actual procedural reason why Tumblety could not have been at liberty (on bail) on 9 November. Am I right?

[Trevor Marriott]

Having looked at the relevant original documents, and having now re-read this entire thread to grapple with the points made, it seems to me that there is no reason relating to procedure why Tumblety could not have been bailed by the magistrate at Marlborough Street on 7 November, returned to Marlborough Street on 14 November to be committed for trial with amended bail conditions and remanded in custody until sureties produced - which were produced at Marlborough Street on 16 November - at which point he was remanded again on bail to take his trial at the Central Criminal Court on 19/20 November. There may be arguments why this was unlikely, which may or may not be good ones, but no actual procedural reason why Tumblety could not have been at liberty (on bail) on 9 November. Am I right?

Tumblety was arrested on Nov 7 if it was on warrant which only allowed arrests for these types of offences. Then he would have to have gone straight before a magistrate that could have been not till Nov 8th if the court was closed at the time of his arrest.

Looking at this sensibly now Tumblety would have been regarded as a high risk for absconding So would the court have given him bail on his own recognizance before committal the answer is no. They might have considered granting bail with sureties but that process took up to 48 hours.

So why would a court grant bail without sureties in the first instance and then ask for sureties at a later stage ? Why not ask for then at the outset.

He was therefore remanded for the max 7 days taking the date to Nov 14th when he was committed. Following this he would have no doubt been told that bail would be granted with sureties and they duly appeared two days later Nov 16th and he was bailed. That`s procedure !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[David Orsam]

Tumblety was arrested on Nov 7 if it was on warrant which only allowed arrests for these types of offences. Then he would have to have gone straight before a magistrate that could have been not till Nov 8th if the court was closed at the time of his arrest.

Looking at this sensibly now Tumblety would have been regarded as a high risk for absconding So would the court have given him bail on his own recognizance before committal the answer is no. They might have considered granting bail with sureties but that process took up to 48 hours.

So why would a court grant bail without sureties in the first instance and then ask for sureties at a later stage ? Why not ask for then at the outset.

He was therefore remanded for the max 7 days taking the date to Nov 14th when he was committed. Following this he would have no doubt been told that bail would be granted with sureties and they duly appeared two days later Nov 16th and he was bailed. That`s procedure !

No, that's argument. I mean, "Tumblety would have been regarded as a high risk for absconding" is speculation. And "why would a court grant bail without sureties in the first instance and then ask for sureties at a later stage ?" is a question. I understand your point that you think it more likely in the circumstances that Tumblety would not have been bailed on 7/8 November but, from reading through the entire thread, and considering the other examples provided by various posters, I was unable to see any procedural reason why Tumblety could not have been bailed to return on 14 November. Everything else just seemed to be argument.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

I'm willing to play along.

Tumblety is arrested on suspicion of the Whitechapel murders and on 7/8 November given seven days' police bail. The very next day a "Ripper" murder takes place in Millers Court.

Wiping the egg off their faces, did the police immediately rearrest him on suspicion of the Whitechapel murders, or patiently wait five days for Tumblety to surrender to his bail at Marlborough Street court and then commit him for trial on a completely different charge?

Why is everyone so keen to keep Tumblety in play as a Ripper suspect when the very idea is so patently absurd?

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

Why is everyone so keen to keep Tumblety in play as a Ripper suspect when the very idea is so patently absurd?

Just to be clear from my point of view. I have absolutely no interest in keeping Tumblety in play as a suspect - or, equally, of taking him out of play. It's just that I had understood that there was a claim that it was impossible for him to have been at liberty on 9 November because the documentary evidence, combined with the court procedure at the time, proved that he must have been in custody. It looks to me, however, like this is not the case.

I take your point Simon about the police behaviour but, of course, there is no official contemporary documentation that Tumblety was a police suspect for the Ripper murders as at 7-9 November, just the newspaper reports and, frankly, I have no idea what the police thought about him as a suspect. I'm only interested in trying to establish whether he was definitely in custody on 9 November and it seems to be that we cannot go so far as to say this.

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

The decider in this matter is the fact that in November 1888 there was no seven-day police bail mechanism. And, even had there been, it is unlikely to have been granted to a person suspected of serial murder.

Regards,

Simon

[GUT]

Hi David,

The decider in this matter is the fact that in November 1888 there was no seven-day police bail mechanism. And, even had there been, it is unlikely to have been granted to a person suspected of serial murder.

Regards,

Simon

But was he suspected at that time? Isn't that the biggy, if he genuinely was would he have got bail at all?

[Trevor Marriott]

Just to be clear from my point of view. I have absolutely no interest in keeping Tumblety in play as a suspect - or, equally, of taking him out of play. It's just that I had understood that there was a claim that it was impossible for him to have been at liberty on 9 November because the documentary evidence, combined with the court procedure at the time, proved that he must have been in custody. It looks to me, however, like this is not the case.

I take your point Simon about the police behaviour but, of course, there is no official contemporary documentation that Tumblety was a police suspect for the Ripper murders as at 7-9 November, just the newspaper reports and, frankly, I have no idea what the police thought about him as a suspect. I'm only interested in trying to establish whether he was definitely in custody on 9 November and it seems to be that we cannot go so far as to say this.

Proper inferences can be drawn from what we know about the judicial system and how it worked then which suggests he was in custody.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[David Orsam]

The decider in this matter is the fact that in November 1888 there was no seven-day police bail mechanism. And, even had there been, it is unlikely to have been granted to a person suspected of serial murder.

Hi Simon - police bail was mentioned by Mike in the OP but I'm not talking about this. My question was whether a magistrate could have remanded Tumblety on bail on 7 or 8 November to return for a committal hearing on 14 November. If you can show that this was not possible that's the end of it but I haven't seen anyone demonstrate this yet.

Regarding your second sentence, even if he was suspected of being a serial murderer by the police, the magistrate would only have been considering bail for the misdemeanour charge before him. So it didn't matter one jot what the police suspected Tumblety of having done.

[David Orsam]

Proper inferences can be drawn from what we know about the judicial system and how it worked then which suggests he was in custody.

For me, I don't see that we have enough information as to what went on in the magistrate's court with Tumblety to safely draw any such inferences but a couple of examples of other cases were mentioned in this thread, without any satisfactory response, which suggests to me that the inference that Tumblety was in custody all the way up to 16 November may not be correct. I don't want to put it higher than that and don't want to argue the probabilities, I just want to know what was possible.