Was Tumblety in Jail during the Kelly Murder?

[Mayerling]

G'day Simon

Murder of a string of prostitutes

G'day GUT,

Is this longer than murder of a string of poloponies?

Jeff

[David Orsam]

We know the name of Tumblety's solicitor.

Hi Simon - You are referring, I assume, to the name "Mr Douglas Norman" on the reverse of the indictment. Do we know for a fact that he was representing Tumblety on 7/8 November? And, if so, how?

[Mayerling]

Wrong. We have other gross indecency cases Hannay saw in 1888, and Tumblety's bail was no different than theirs. This clearly shows Hannay did not consider Tumblety as a flight risk. Why would they think that?

Your argument continues to crumble.

We have this fellow who loves to boast about his connections with the high and the mighty throughout his career. He usually is lying, but he can (impossible as we would like to think it) occasionally mingle with the high and the mighty...especially if he shares a pleasure with them that is considered criminal.

Doesn't it occur to anyone that Doctor T. may have met and known "august personages" who frequented male bordellos or used the male prostitutes he may have used?

Doesn't it occur to anyone that these personages may have been willing to set the bail (or force the magistrate - whoever it was) to set the bail at a low enough amount that whomever were the sureties would not be out too much cash (that could surrepticiously be reimbursed to them or paid for them).

Before saying no, just remember that on a similar charge (only a year later) Lord Somerset, Queen Victoria's Master of the Hounds (I believe) somehow was tipped off about the Cleveland Street Investigation and fled to France before being arrested. And who was in charge of that investigation? Gee...Mr. Frederick Abberline!!!

I'm not suggesting Abberline is behind this, but I remind everyone that when you have all known historic life on one planet, than those who live in a single period of history in a selected part of that planet do have a chance of knowing each other and interacting when they have to. A simple rule, that we all occasionally forget.

Jeff

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jeff,

Spot-on.

Tumblety's bail was hush-money.

You can work out the rest.

Regards,

Simon

[mklhawley]

We have this fellow who loves to boast about his connections with the high and the mighty throughout his career. He usually is lying, but he can (impossible as we would like to think it) occasionally mingle with the high and the mighty...especially if he shares a pleasure with them that is considered criminal.

Doesn't it occur to anyone that Doctor T. may have met and known "august personages" who frequented male bordellos or used the male prostitutes he may have used?

Doesn't it occur to anyone that these personages may have been willing to set the bail (or force the magistrate - whoever it was) to set the bail at a low enough amount that whomever were the sureties would not be out too much cash (that could surrepticiously be reimbursed to them or paid for them).

Before saying no, just remember that on a similar charge (only a year later) Lord Somerset, Queen Victoria's Master of the Hounds (I believe) somehow was tipped off about the Cleveland Street Investigation and fled to France before being arrested. And who was in charge of that investigation? Gee...Mr. Frederick Abberline!!!

I'm not suggesting Abberline is behind this, but I remind everyone that when you have all known historic life on one planet, than those who live in a single period of history in a selected part of that planet do have a chance of knowing each other and interacting when they have to. A simple rule, that we all occasionally forget.

Jeff

Hi Jeff,

Very interesting. We just know Hannay placed bail for others in 1888 with the exact amount. It seems to be an automatic for Hannay. Still, very interesting.

Mike

[GUT]

Hi Jeff,

Very interesting. We just know Hannay placed bail for others in 1888 with the exact amount. It seems to be an automatic for Hannay. Still, very interesting.

Mike

Actually typical of most Courts [and indeed even most police stations] similar offence, same bail unless there are major reasons not to, and that is how it should be.

[Trevor Marriott]

Actually typical of most Courts [and indeed even most police stations] similar offence, same bail unless there are major reasons not to, and that is how it should be.

Its has already been established that he could not have gotten bail from a police station.

And the major reasons for the court not initially granting bail have been fully explained which part do you not understand.

[GUT]

Its has already been established that he could not have gotten bail from a police station.

And the major reasons for the court not initially granting bail have been fully explained which part do you not understand.

Obviously you don't understand I was commenting on the statement that his bail was set at the same amount as set n other cases.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Jeff,

An observation only.

There is a tendency in this game to place an onus of belief of honesty upon the workings and methods of both individual policemen of rank and their comments in later years.

Given the Abberline reference you made, the Anderson biography and a few other examples I could make...It would, I humbly put forward, for us all to believe "with caution" the goings on of the Met police.

This has to be considered when weighing up the pros and cons re anything to do with any suggested suspect.

For it is a well known fact that policemen of rank have pulled more fast ones for the sake of clouding issues if it is of some benefit in some way.

Just who do we believe and how much?

Merely an observation as the subject of the Cleveland St scandal came up. Protecting people and their reputations has been going on since the Met was formed.

Tumblety and his reputation would have been seriously damaged had the news of his naughty goings on become well known.

A dawned good safeguard for Tumblety would be a self promotion into the annals of suspectology re the ripper murders too. Something he did with great aplomb back in the good old USA. Nice clouding I call that.


Phil

[Trevor Marriott]

Well, Trevor, I think we have narrowed the issue down to a very simple one. We both agree that it was a decision for the magistrate as to whether Tumblety would be remanded into custody or not and that this decision would have by made on the merits of the submissions presented to him. Where I think you are making an obvious error is that you are only considering the possible submissions that would have been made to him by the police and completely ignoring any possible submissions from the defence. In fact, you have not said a single word about the arguments on the other side.

It would have taken Tumblety no time at all to get a lawyer – there were plenty of solicitors based in Great Marlborough Street, right next to Marlborough Street Police Court (Arthur Newton & Co being one), who were ready and waiting every day for instructions in cases like this – especially on behalf of men with money - to which they would respond at the drop of a hat. And a good, experienced, criminal defence lawyer could easily have presented a picture of Dr Tumblety, a respectable elderly physician of good character, no previous criminal record to speak of, with business interests in the UK, determined to clear his name of these horrible and false allegations against him, with the police evidence being weak and entirely circumstantial blah blah blah.

Just by way of example, in the case which I have researched of Robert Wood (accused of being the murderer of Emily Dimmock in 1907 and who was arrested on Friday 4 Oct 1907, charged on Saturday 5 Oct and up before the magistrate at Clerkenwell Police Court on Monday 7 Oct), his solicitor, Arthur Newton, made a very determined effort to have him freed on bail before the magistrate on the Monday afternoon and offered a sum of £1,000 in two sureties which he had ready, having only been instructed by Wood's brother on the Monday morning. As you will be aware, it was unheard of for a man accused of murder to be released on bail but Newton played every card in favour of Wood and the magistrate appeared to be on the point of relenting when the police suddenly revealed that Wood had been identified that morning by a witness as a man seen leaving the scene of the crime in the middle of the night and bail was refused. The point being that we simply cannot come to a conclusion at this distance as to whether someone would be released or not without knowing the arguments presented and, as I have already said, you cannot possibly second guess what decision the magistrate at Marlborough Street Police Court actually came to, when it was entirely within his discretion as to what the outcome should be.

Your comment that, "There is no official record to show that he was ever bailed before [16 Nov]" is misguided because (a) there is no official record to show that he was remanded in custody before 14 Nov either and (b) this fact would not have been included in the Old Bailey calendar, just as it was not for other cases.

You may (or may not) be right that Tumblety was remanded into custody for a week following his arrest but that is a far cry from saying that he must have been because the English legal system allowed no possible alternative.

How can you possibly consider the fact that Tumblety was able to secure bail on Nov 7/8 when the police would have automatically raised the issues I previously mentioned. These would have been genuine concerns. How could he have satisfied the court that he was not going to abscond at that time, and he had a fixed address etc etc. He was a high risk to abscond.

You have also been told that bail was not normally given until after committal. Now I accept that is not written in stone, but again it was a matter of discretion for the court, and the events thereafter suggest they used that discretion and didn't grant him bail.

How can you then say he got bail and then turned up on Nov 14 for his committal still on bail, and how do you then explain on Nov 16 the records show him being granted bail with sureties. Up to then no record of any form of bail is recorded.

If he had already been on bail on Nov 14th when he appeared for his committal the bail would have been automatically extended. There would have been no need to bail him again with sureties two days after the committal what would have been the point.

As to the sureties he had 7 days to come up with them before his committal. The court in suspicious cases need up to 48 hours to check out sureties being put forward. The sureties had to attend court in person.

The identity of Tumblety's two sureties is unknown. One slight clue is from the New York World, 2nd December 1888—

"Dr. Tumblety was committed for trial and liberated on bail, two gentlemen coming forward to act as bondsmen in the amount of $1500. On being hunted up by the police to-day, they asserted that they had only known the doctor for a few days previous to his arrest."


That article suggests he was only bailed after committal !

You keep mentioning other cases, and I keep saying each case and the question of bail would be judged on its merits so to keep quoting them is irrelevant.

Had he been granted bail on Nov 7/8 he would have done a runner before his committal date on Nov 14

He was in custody the night MJK was murdered.

Was he involved in any of the murders NO, Was he ever a prime suspect NO

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[David Orsam]

These would have been genuine concerns.

It doesn't matter if the police had genuine concerns or false concerns, the magistrate would have made his decision on the merits on the basis of the submissions presented to him.

How could he have satisfied the court that he was not going to abscond at that time, and he had a fixed address etc etc. He was a high risk to abscond.

You keep trying to re-argue a bail hearing from 1888 without considering whether an experienced and skilful criminal defence lawyer might have been able to tear your arguments to shreds, or at least convince a magistrate not to remand his client into custody. It doesn't matter that you think in 2015 that he was a high risk to abscond, it's what the magistrate was persuaded by in 1888.

You have also been told that bail was not normally given until after committal

Well yes you keep saying that, I'll give you that.

Now I accept that is not written in stone

Oh, well there we are.

but again it was a matter of discretion for the court

You did read my last post where I said exactly this, right?

and the events thereafter suggest they used that discretion and didn't grant him bail.

To "suggest" is not to "prove" and that's the point I was making.

How can you then say he got bail and then turned up on Nov 14 for his committal still on bail, and how do you then explain on Nov 16 the records show him being granted bail with sureties. Up to then no record of any form of bail is recorded.

Come on Trevor, this has been explained to you ad infinitum. Too boring for me to explain it again

If he had already been on bail on Nov 14th when he appeared for his committal the bail would have been automatically extended.

If you can prove this you might have a point but you seem to have forgotten that examples have been produced which demonstrate that this is not necessarily the case.

There would have been no need to bail him again with sureties two days after the committal what would have been the point.

Something else that's already been answered in this thread.

As to the sureties he had 7 days to come up with them before his committal. The court in suspicious cases need up to 48 hours to check out sureties being put forward. The sureties had to attend court in person.

Reminds me that you never even responded to my point about the possibility of him having been released on his own recognizance.

The identity of Tumblety's two sureties is unknown. One slight clue is from the New York World, 2nd December 1888—

Dr. Tumblety was committed for trial and liberated on bail, two gentlemen coming forward to act as bondsmen in the amount of $1500. On being hunted up by the police to-day, they asserted that they had only known the doctor for a few days previous to his arrest."

That article suggests he was only bailed after committal !

The irony of you relying on a newspaper article to bolster your case with "a slight clue" is not lost on me and I'm sure won't be lost on others. In any case, we know he was bailed after the committal, what the article does not say is that he was "only" bailed after committal.

You keep mentioning other cases, and I keep saying each case and the question of bail would be judged on its merits so to keep quoting them is irrelevant.

The reason I am forced to mention other cases to you is because you keep referring to what must have happened in the Tumblety case as if the magistrate had no discretion at all and only one outcome was possible.

Had he been granted bail on Nov 7/8 he would have done a runner before his committal date on Nov 14

More supposition, ignoring the fact that before 14 November he had not been committed for trial so there was no guarantee that he would be tried.

He was in custody the night MJK was murdered.

Your own words earlier in this very post were "the events thereafter suggest they used that discretion and didn't grant him bail". You have moved from a suggestion to a certainty without batting an eyelid, and also without explanation.

Was he involved in any of the murders NO, Was he ever a prime suspect NO

Both irrelevant points and nothing to do with the subject matter of this thread (although I will grant you that others have gone off topic too).

[Trevor Marriott]

It doesn't matter if the police had genuine concerns or false concerns, the magistrate would have made his decision on the merits on the basis of the submissions presented to him.



You keep trying to re-argue a bail hearing from 1888 without considering whether an experienced and skilful criminal defence lawyer might have been able to tear your arguments to shreds, or at least convince a magistrate not to remand his client into custody. It doesn't matter that you think in 2015 that he was a high risk to abscond, it's what the magistrate was persuaded by in 1888.



Well yes you keep saying that, I'll give you that.



Oh, well there we are.



You did read my last post where I said exactly this, right?



To "suggest" is not to "prove" and that's the point I was making.



Come on Trevor, this has been explained to you ad infinitum. Too boring for me to explain it again



If you can prove this you might have a point but you seem to have forgotten that examples have been produced which demonstrate that this is not necessarily the case.



Something else that's already been answered in this thread.



Reminds me that you never even responded to my point about the possibility of him having been released on his own recognizance.



The irony of you relying on a newspaper article to bolster your case with "a slight clue" is not lost on me and I'm sure won't be lost on others. In any case, we know he was bailed after the committal, what the article does not say is that he was "only" bailed after committal.



The reason I am forced to mention other cases to you is because you keep referring to what must have happened in the Tumblety case as if the magistrate had no discretion at all and only one outcome was possible.



More supposition, ignoring the fact that before 14 November he had not been committed for trial so there was no guarantee that he would be tried.



Your own words earlier in this very post were "the events thereafter suggest they used that discretion and didn't grant him bail". You have moved from a suggestion to a certainty without batting an eyelid, and also without explanation.



Both irrelevant points and nothing to do with the subject matter of this thread (although I will grant you that others have gone off topic too).

Do you make a habit of arguing for the sake of arguing because you cannot produce anything to suggest he was bailed on Nov 7/8 with or without sureties.

Whereas everything else which has been provided, not just by me points to him not being bailed.

Now either he was or he wasn't time to get down off the fence !

[Ausgirl]

Was he ever a prime suspect NO

... then why's he all over the papers as a Ripper suspect? Never mind that whole police looking into him for the murders thing.

Looks like he was viewed as a pretty serious candidate, to me.

[GUT]

... then why's he all over the papers as a Ripper suspect? Never mind that whole police looking into him for the murders thing.

Looks like he was viewed as a pretty serious candidate, to me.

Littlechild seems to have fancied him too.

[mklhawley]

Tumblety and his reputation would have been seriously damaged had the news of his naughty goings on become well known.

Phil, are you kidding me? Tumblety's reputation for gross acts with young men stretched back to the Civil War. To say this, shows ignorance on the history of Tumblety. The New York World London correspondent only broke the story when an 'American by the name of Kumblety' became public. That's why no one picked up the story after the November 7 arrest. The article states, 'the police said' not 'Kumblety said'.

If Tumblety wanted to keep his gross indecency arrest on the low key, why could he have pinned the front page Ripper news onto him? He wasn't stupid; just weird.

A dawned good safeguard for Tumblety would be a self promotion into the annals of suspectology re the ripper murders too. Something he did with great aplomb back in the good old USA. Nice clouding I call that.

Self promotion for what? His herb doctor business? Even Riordan stated he was semi-retired. His self promotion days were over for years.

Way off base, Phil.

Sincerely,

Mike