Was Tumblety in Jail during the Kelly Murder?

[mklhawley]

Trevor!

I see you're trying to ignore my posts. Too bad, since it certainly shows how you cherry pick the evidence and create points masked by the word, 'facts'.

But people like Phil wasn't privy to your bias - caught red-handed. Notice the proof of your anti-Tumblety bias. in the San Francisco Chronicle on November 18, 1888:

BOSTON GLOBE, November 18,1888

DOING WHITECHAPEL
TWO ARRESTS ON SUSPICION MADE YESTERDAY.
ONE A CHUM OF THE PRINCE OF WALES AND THE OTHER AN AMERICAN PHYSICIAN.

London, Nov. 17-

Just think of it ! One of the Prince of Wales' own exclusives, a member of his household and cavalry and one of the best known swells about town who glory in the glamor of the Guelphs, getting into custody on suspicion of being the Whitechapel murderer. It is the talk of all clubdom tonight.
Just now it is a fashionable fad to slum it in Whitechapel and every night scores of young men who have never been in the East End before in their lives, prowl around the neighborhood of the murders talking with frightened women. So long as two men keep together and do not make nuisances of themselves, the police do not interfere with them. But if a man goes off alone and tries to lure a woman off the street into a secluded corner, he is pretty sure to get into trouble.

This was the case of Sir George Arthur of Prince Wales set. He put on an old coat and slouch hat and went to Whitechapel for a little fun. He got it. It occurred to two policemen that Sir George answered very much to the description of Jack The Ripper and they watched him and when they saw him talking with a woman they collared him. He protested and threatened them with the vengeance of the royal wrath, but in vain. Finally a chance was given him to send to a fashionable West End Club and prove his identity and he was released with profuse apologies for the mistake. The affair was kept out of the newspaper, but the jolly young baronets at the Brooks Club considered the joke too good to keep quiet.

Another arrest was a man who gave the name of Dr. Kumbelty of New York. The police could not hold him on suspicion of the Whitechapel crimes, but he has been committed for trial, under a 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 from New York and that he has been in the habit of crossing the ocean twice a year for several years.

A score of men have been arrested by the police this week on suspicion, but the right man still roams at large and everybody is momentarily expecting to hear of another victim.
The large sums offered by private individualsas rewards have induced hundreds of amateur detectives to take a hand in the chase, but to no avail.
Leon Rothschild has offered an income of 2 pounds a week for life for the man who gives the information leading to the arrest and conviction of the assassin.



I don’t get it Trevor; the very same New York World Cable, where their Chief London correspondent, Tracy Greaves, reported on Tumblety first being arrest on suspicion, was the only report about Sir George Arthur also being arrested on suspicion. You whole-heartedly believe this discovery of Greaves, yet you whole-heartedly reject the other. How do I know this? Your own article:

[mklhawley]

Your own article:

“On 30 November 1888, the Wrexham advertiser, Clwyd, Wales, Britain, also published the story, but withheld Sir George Arthur’s name. Wild coincidences aside, Tumblety seems to have appropriated it, complete with slouch had, for himself. His story would appear to have been an elaborate fiction.” (Lost at Sea, p. 44, Rip 127)


So, how can I accept your interpretation of events when you clearly show bias against Tumblety as a Ripper suspect?


Face it Trevor, there is no kind of objective evidence that will change your mind, because you don't want it changed. Truth is secondary.


So, keep on ignoring me Trevor.

[Mayerling]

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

Hi Phil,

Not that I fingered Fred Abberline for cover-up king (although one might make an effort to do so). No my concern was the obvious one that Tumblety might have dropped a word to his real good connections that if he went down for two years - well, he wouldn't like it but once over he'd leave and return to America. But he might take some of them with him, and they would not like it. Their "good names" would be like used tissue paper. In fact, I wonder how Doc. T. followed the tragedy of 1895 involving Oscar Wilde. Tumblety could have survived it, but he saw Wilde couldn't.

Not that a reputation as a pederast would earn Tumblety anything but contempt in America, but he could have done what he did - go into the vast hinterland of the country for his final decade and a half and not make any real noise to attract attention. He had the money to do so. Apparently he was quite comfortable there.

Wilde tried France, and Paris in particular. If not for Robbie Ross it would have been totally impossible for the bankrupt writer. As it was he acted like a trained parrot: when well-to-do travelers came to Paris and ran into him he "went into his act" as though still being the living incarnation of aestheticism. In Thomas Beer's "The Mauve Decade" he includes some American friend's encounter with this peculiar ghost. It is quite pathetic.

In the case of Lord Arthur Somerset, his wealthy family sent him enough on remittances for him to live in France until his death decades later. But he had a wealthy family - Wilde did not.

Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

Your own article:

“On 30 November 1888, the Wrexham advertiser, Clwyd, Wales, Britain, also published the story, but withheld Sir George Arthur’s name. Wild coincidences aside, Tumblety seems to have appropriated it, complete with slouch had, for himself. His story would appear to have been an elaborate fiction.” (Lost at Sea, p. 44, Rip 127)


So, how can I accept your interpretation of events when you clearly show bias against Tumblety as a Ripper suspect?


Face it Trevor, there is no kind of objective evidence that will change your mind, because you don't want it changed. Truth is secondary.


So, keep on ignoring me Trevor.

The bias as you put it towards Tumblety is to show that he was not involved in any of the murders, and that on the night of Kellys murder he was locked up There is clear evidence to show both as being correct.

I will keep on ignoring you while you keep quoting secondary evidence in the from of newspaper articles, when you or anyone else for that matter comes up with some primary evidence to suggest Tumblety was ever a prime ripper suspect then I and others might listen to you.

As to Littlechild, years later he simply gave an opinion, in which much of what he said has been disproved in the ensuing years. So how reliable is he?

Why do you persist in keeping Tumblety alive as a Ripper suspect? Is it because you like so many others believe what you read in your newspapers and in books written by long gone authors who were no more informed then than many of the authors of today.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[mklhawley]

The bias as you put it towards Tumblety is to show that he was not involved in any of the murders, and that on the night of Kellys murder he was locked up There is clear evidence to show both as being correct.

I will keep on ignoring you while you keep quoting secondary evidence in the from of newspaper articles, when you or anyone else for that matter comes up with some primary evidence to suggest Tumblety was ever a prime ripper suspect then I and others might listen to you.

As to Littlechild, years later he simply gave an opinion, in which much of what he said has been disproved in the ensuing years. So how reliable is he?

Why do you persist in keeping Tumblety alive as a Ripper suspect? Is it because you like so many others believe what you read in your newspapers and in books written by long gone authors who were no more informed then than many of the authors of today.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

But that's what I'm saying. The Sir George Arthur story comes strictly from what you call secondary evidence, yet you believe it wholeheartedly.
Can't have it both ways, unless you're bias.

[Chris]

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 !

Yes, of course, either he was or he wasn't.

But if we don't know whether he was, then we don't know.

It's fine to explain why you think he's not likely to have been bailed. And other people can explain why they think he is likely to have been bailed. But, as you've agreed in the past, we just can't know for sure.

[David Orsam]

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.

If you are merely asking me to produce something to "suggest" he was bailed on 7/8 Nov then I have already produced it. Namely, the fact that he was bailed on 16 Nov, thus completely answering your point that he couldn't possibly have been bailed on 7/8 Nov because he was considered a flight risk.

Yes, we can both suggest things or draw inferences from the few available documents, and from what we know of the legal system, but in the absence of the Marlborough Street Police Court records, or any press reports of the proceedings of that court in respect of Tumblety, we simply don't know the answer for sure. I don't need to come off the fence here because any answer I give you one way or the other, even if I agree with you, would be no more than speculation, an educated guess if you prefer, but still a guess. But if you really want my answer to the question "Was Tumblety in jail during the Kelly murder?" it would be: I don't know!

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes, of course, either he was or he wasn't.

But if we don't know whether he was, then we don't know.

It's fine to explain why you think he's not likely to have been bailed. And other people can explain why they think he is likely to have been bailed. But, as you've agreed in the past, we just can't know for sure.

But when you weigh up the workings of the police and judicial system of the time, coupled with what we know of Tumblety and his antecedents the balance of probability is that he was locked up on the night Kelly was murdered.

But of course those who are Tumblety proponents will always say the opposite simply to keep him on the list of suspects who were not JTR

[David Orsam]

Yes, of course, either he was or he wasn't.

But if we don't know whether he was, then we don't know.

It's fine to explain why you think he's not likely to have been bailed. And other people can explain why they think he is likely to have been bailed. But, as you've agreed in the past, we just can't know for sure.

I absolutely agree with this 100%.

Trevor, I wouldn't even be arguing with you if you were putting forward a normal argument, on the balance of probabilities, but you keep wanting to state things as facts which aren't facts.

The statement I posted in this thread on 8 Feb, which started this latest discussion, was that there is "no actual procedural reason why Tumblety could not have been at liberty (on bail) on 9 November", and the subsequent posts seems to me to have confirmed this statement.

[David Orsam]

the balance of probability is that he was locked up on the night Kelly was murdered.

Trevor, our last posts crossed and the way you have worded that is fine. I'm not saying I agree, because I'm not sure there is enough information either way, but it's not a claim I have any desire (or enough information) to argue against.

[mklhawley]

But of course those who are Tumblety proponents will always say the opposite simply to keep him on the list of suspects who were not JTR

Sorry Trevor; wrong again. ALL of the sources support Tumblety as a suspect, significant enough for Scotland Yard to try and hold him for gross indecency - the charge sheet, the court calendars, Assistant Commissioner Anderson's POST Kelly requests, Littlechild's letter, The New York World London correspondent's investigation, the Boston Herald London correspondent's investigation, the Associated Press London correspondent's investigation, the British press, and Tumblety's admission of being in jail only a couple of days. No conflicts!


BUT! ...only a cherry picking of a Trevor interpretation of British Law merely suggests Tumblety was in jail at the time of Kelly's murder, which conflicts with the above evidence.



And then there's logic. Tumblety could have easily embarrassed the police he hated, Scotland Yard, by informing the press he was in jail during the Kelly murder so how idiotic was it that they investigated him.



Sorry Trevor, it's not a 50:50 case of embracing your biased interpretation to the likes of Stewart Evans and Roger Palmer.



Take a back seat dark horse.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mike,

Stewart Evans with his mythical seven-day police bail story is to blame for this whole shenanigans.

Tumblety informing the press he was in jail during the Millers Court murder would have destroyed the whole scenario.

Please take a moment to try to reconnect with Planet Earth and think about how this whole shaky story played out.

Regards,

Simon

[mklhawley]

Hi Mike,

Stewart Evans with his mythical seven-day police bail story is to blame for this whole shenanigans.

Tumblety informing the press he was in jail during the Millers Court murder would have destroyed the whole scenario.

Please take a moment to try to reconnect with Planet Earth and think about how this whole shaky story played out.

Regards,

Simon

The fact that you and... Trevor, are the only two on the same planet (oh, maybe Dan Norder) who still believe this convoluted scenario certainly does suggest the contrary. How coincidental, you two embrace the same Sir George Arthur story even though it's supported entirely by 'secondary sources' and the exact source that revealed Tumblety was arrest on suspicion.

Wake up, Simon. The California sun is baking your cockney hat.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mike,

A simple question for you.

Was the Sir George Arthur story true?

If not, why not?

Regards,

Simon

[mklhawley]

Hi Mike,

A simple question for you.

Was the Sir George Arthur story true?

If not, why not?

Regards,

Simon

For me, I have no issues, because that very November 7, 1888, New York World cable also reported about 'Kumblety' being first arrested on suspicion and then AFTER being charged with gross indecency in order to hold him due to the Ripper case. This was the only report of Sir George Arthur.

You, along with Trevor, claim the London correspondent is dead wrong about 'Kumblety', because we can't trust secondary sources, yet is dead right about Sir George (even though it's the very same secondary source). Further entrenching your biasness is the fact that the London correspondent has been corroborated by the charge sheet, the court calendars, the Boston Herald correspondent, the AP correspondent, Littlechild, AND Assistant Commissioner Anderson. It's not that the London correspondent story had no corroboration.