Crowley's Request - Howard never got the memo

[Trevor Marriott]

It is a fact that in Ripperworld, whoever you are, you are at your weakest when arguing for a specific suspect.

You have your own ideas Trevor, and that's fine, you continue to see things how you wish to see them. But I have better things to do with my time than become involved in a tit for tat argument of the sort that you seem to relish.

So you carry on, and we all await your next wondrous revelation.

They are not my ideas. As part of my investigation one of my tasks I set was to look at suspects and their viability for being regarded as a ripper suspects and if necessary to either try to find more evidence against them or as is the case with many was to try to dismiss them as suspects because on the face of it there was no or little evidence against these so called prime suspects who appeared to have been put forward as a result of wild speculative uncorroborated theories over the years.

In the case of Tumblety it was you who brought him into the frame. From what is now known about Tumblety and the fact that your evidence does not stand up, Tumblety in my opinion based on what I have gone to great lengths to discuss on here, and what was previously documented in full in Ripperolgist his status as a suspect in any way is poorly deserved.

I do not intend to waste any more time on him in the future.

More wondrous revelations to bring forth !

If I can help you with your research in the future feel free to contact me after all us old CID boys still have a bit about us not like you old woodentops

[Trevor Marriott]

As I said, all this was discussed at great length last year on the thread I linked to.

The upshot of that was that you agreed the records do not provide definite proof either way. You said your view was based on the "balance of probability". Arguments can be made on both sides, but in the end it's a matter of opinion, not of fact.

The other side don't have an argument. All the other side say is that yes he was bailed and they say prove he wasn't.

But of course if you are going to argue then the other side should produce proof to prop up their contention which they have not done in any way.

They have simply relied on Stewart Evans saying he was bailed and giving an explanation which is wrong both in law and in practice.

If you want to rely on the balance of probability then putting all the evidence together coupled with the legal procedures the evidence clearly without question tip the scales in favor of him not being bailed.

[Stewart P Evans]

It is a fact...

It is a fact that in Ripperworld, whoever you are, you are at your weakest when arguing for a specific suspect.

You have your own ideas Trevor, and that's fine, you continue to see things how you wish to see them. But I have better things to do with my time than become involved in a tit for tat argument of the sort that you seem to relish.

So you carry on, and we all await your next wondrous revelation.

[Chris]

The facts speak for themselves

As I said, all this was discussed at great length last year on the thread I linked to.

The upshot of that was that you agreed the records do not provide definite proof either way. You said your view was based on the "balance of probability". Arguments can be made on both sides, but in the end it's a matter of opinion, not of fact.

[Trevor Marriott]

Not every Irish person in London was the subject of a large dossier held at Scotland Yard and mentioned by the head of the Special Branch. Do try not to be misleading with your comments.

Not misleading you do not know that the dossier you refer to was in relation to Irish activities. It could have been in relation to the Gross indecency investigation which I suggest is the more likely having regard to the fact that he was charged with those offences and given that there is no evidence to show he was investigated by SB in 1888.

[Trevor Marriott]

There was a very long and detailed discussion of this question on another thread. At that time Trevor Marriott did agree with my statement that the records don't tell us whether Tumblety was bailed on 7 November. He acknowledged that it could not be proved definitively but that the balance of probability suggested he had not been bailed:

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=233311&postcount=110

Obviously other people disagree with that view. It is a matter of opinion, not a fact.

The facts speak for themselves

If he was bailed on Nov 7th.8th by a magistrate why did he have to provide sureties on Nov14th. The court on his first appearance would have asked for sureties then if they were amind to grant him bail

Besides. It was practice that where sureties are offered up the police needed up to 48 hours to investigate them. So he could not have been released on his first appearance at court

If he had been bailed with sureties in the first instance. There would have been no need for a magistrate to put in place sureties in the future. He was more than likely told on his first appearance that bail might be considered subject to suitable sureties being found. That process would have taken him several days to find sureties and several days for the police to investigate their suitability.

[Trevor Marriott]

And so it goes on

You old CID men are always good with the bullsh*t.

1. There is no scrap of evidence to show that Tumblety was not arrested or spoken to in connection with the Whitechapel murders. In fact quite the contrary is indicated.

Then bring it on because so far no one has seen it apart from all the crap printed in the US papers, and what Tumbley boasted about. Hardly evidence or have you lost the ability to define evidence.

2. The police bail used by the Victorian police (for want of a better name) under section 38 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, allowed for a person taken into custody for an offence without a warrant to be bailed by a superintendent, inspector or other officer of equal or superior rank, or in charge of a police station to bring that person before a magistrate within twenty-four hours after arrest, inquire into the case, and, unless the case appeared to such officer to be of a serious nature, discharge the person upon his entering into a recognizance with or without sureties for a reasonable amount to appear before some court of summary jurisdiction at the time and place named in the recognizance, but where such a person is retained in custody he shall be brought before a court of summary jurisdiction as soon as practicable. A magistrate could convene a court in a police station. However, an initial arrest and discharge on suspicion could be extended from one to two days with an arrest for another offence (in this case indecency) for a further twenty four hours, before bailing.

Yes police bail. Not bail to come back to a police station. Followed by court bail. The extra 24 hours you refer to would be for detention at a police station. The normal bail time for a person detained was 7 days and then they had to brought back before the court. November 8th-15th. Or altenartively a visiting magistrate to a prison could grant bail to anyone on renand at any time

3. We do not know that there was, and there is no evidence to suggest that there was, any 'lengthy police investigation into him for his indecency offences'. Indeed, the last indecency offence was dated 2 November 1888, and this may well have been (as it often was in these cases) the only one at that time that the police were aware of. If the earlier offences, 27 July 1888, 31 August 1888, 14 October 1888, were known at the time they were committed then, surely, he would have been arrested much sooner, the first two being committed before the police were even aware that it was the start of a series of murders on 31 August. As is often the case with these offences, initial arrest would be for the last case which they were aware of, followed by revelation of the earlier offences by a process of questioning the last 'victim' who would be only too pleased to involve others he knew of to ameliorate his own situation. There is no way that they could have kept him under constant observation (he was a slippery customer anyway). Tumblety was wealthy, he did use fixed addresses, the maximum he could be sentenced to was only 2 years (and that depended on the gravity of the circumstances of the offence), and, as we know, he did get court bail anyway and so your argument against him getting bail falls down.

Yes he got court bail but not straight after his arrest and not at his first appearance at court. He would have been arrested on a warrant for the indecency offences. Clearly the police had built up a dossier on him for these offences, otherwise they would not have been able to charge all those offences going back to July. They had all their evidence when he was arrested.

4. There is no evidence whatsoever that he appeared at court on 8 November and was remanded for 7 days. If you have documentary evidence for this please produce it.

Well he had to have appeared at court on Nov 8th following being charged there was no other procedure in place.That appearance would have had to have been with him being bailed at the police station on Nov 7th when he was charged or having been been remanded in custody over night.

5. What enquiries regarding the murders in order to produce evidence against Tumblety could the police pursue? They had no evidence against any suspect - no one really disputes that. There was no solid case against anyone and Tumblety was no different.

The question must be what evidence did they have if any to suspect him and to arrest him as you suggest for the murders.

6. As we know, many suspects, and witnesses were interrogated regarding the murders.

I note you choice of words interrogated does that mean being invited to the police station to answer questions. Clearly the police code dictated otherwise.

Look at this scenario based on the police code and guidleines

Detective having arrested Tumbelty as you suggest presents him to the station sgt

Detective "I have arrested this man on being the Whitechapel murderer"
Sgt "What is you evidence"
Detective " None Sgt but i have enquiries to do on him which may result in sufficient evidence coming to light to warrant being able to charge him"
Sgt "Very well I will detain him here whilst you do your enquiries but remember if you haven't any evidence to charge him within 24 hours then I will release him"

Why arrest him if there was no evidence they couldnt question him

What facts, pray tell, did Littlechild get wrong in his letter? I am not relying on anything, I am producing the written record of a respected ex-police officer, still working as a private enquiry agent, telling us that Tumblety was amongst the suspects at the time of the murders. You must be ageing yourself to try and say that he wasn't a suspect.

Gideon Fell was a character invented by John Dickson Carr, not me, and featuring in some very good detective novels. It was also a name used by me, as I have admitted, in the past to try and prevent nonsense that I have to endure when using my real name.

Yes, you do have weird ideas, as is generally agreed on these boards and elsewhere.

What seems weird to you and others is not considered weird to many others outside of the two Ripper websites.

I am sure that you have many wonderful qualities Trevor, you are better looking than me, you are very fit for your age, you are an eloquent and entertaining speaker to mention but a few.

[Chris]

Having been arrested on Nov 7th and charged. The police would have to have made a decision as to what to do with him with regards to the indecency offences.

That decision would have either to have bailed him to the next available court or remand him in custody. They took the latter as would the police today having regard for the fact that Tumblety was at high risk for absconding.

There was a very long and detailed discussion of this question on another thread. At that time Trevor Marriott did agree with my statement that the records don't tell us whether Tumblety was bailed on 7 November. He acknowledged that it could not be proved definitively but that the balance of probability suggested he had not been bailed:

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=233311&postcount=110

Obviously other people disagree with that view. It is a matter of opinion, not a fact.

[Stewart P Evans]

Littlechild

Stewart
...
All you rely on in the opinion of an ageing police officer in later years, and one single opinion is not enough to equate to Tumblety being a prime suspect or any other category of suspect.
...

Sir Melville Macnaghten on Littlechild in 1914 -



Again, I stress, Littlechild is stating fact when he says that Tumblety was 'amongst the suspects'. He is clearly stating opinion, and says so, when he states '...and to my mind a very likely one.'

With no hard evidence there can be no 'prime suspect'. There are only various suspects dependent upon the provenance of the source material on them, some are better than others. Tumblety, despite all your (and a few biased others) protestations was certainly a contemporary suspect.

[Stewart P Evans]

And of course...

And of course, in looking at an Irish connection in those frantic days at the commencement of the Special Commission, there are other scenarios to consider.

Apart from making a case for Tumblety being the murderer we have to look at the concept that 'he was concerned in the perpetration of the Whitechapel murders' a phrase used more than once by the press. An interesting way of wording it. It was also noted that when he had a young man under his control he could get him to do almost anything. So, in the context we have, Tumblety need not have operated alone if he was 'concerned with the murders.'

There may well have been an Irish plot to discredit both the police and the government by carrying out the horrible murders that they were powerless to stop. The radical press had a field day attacking both police and home office and demanding the resignation of Warren and Matthews.

Another argument could be that he may have been suspected of involvement with the murders but was totally innocent. Also a credible argument has been made, by Alex Chisholm, that Kelly was not even a Ripper victim.

I could go on, but it's pointless as I, like you, do not have conclusive proof of many of the arguments put forward. And I really am past trying to prove who Jack the Ripper was - it's an impossibility.

But when someone makes the outrageous suggestion that Tumblety was not even a suspect. Well, in fairness, I have to respond.

[Stewart P Evans]

Not every...

So every Irish person in London at the time was regarded as a terrorist or sympathizer.
Stop trying to muddy the waters.

Not every Irish person in London was the subject of a large dossier held at Scotland Yard and mentioned by the head of the Special Branch. Do try not to be misleading with your comments.

[Stewart P Evans]

You old CID men...

You old CID men are always good with the bullsh*t.

1. There is no scrap of evidence to show that Tumblety was not arrested or spoken to in connection with the Whitechapel murders. In fact quite the contrary is indicated.

2. The police bail used by the Victorian police (for want of a better name) under section 38 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, allowed for a person taken into custody for an offence without a warrant to be bailed by a superintendent, inspector or other officer of equal or superior rank, or in charge of a police station to bring that person before a magistrate within twenty-four hours after arrest, inquire into the case, and, unless the case appeared to such officer to be of a serious nature, discharge the person upon his entering into a recognizance with or without sureties for a reasonable amount to appear before some court of summary jurisdiction at the time and place named in the recognizance, but where such a person is retained in custody he shall be brought before a court of summary jurisdiction as soon as practicable. A magistrate could convene a court in a police station. However, an initial arrest and discharge on suspicion could be extended from one to two days with an arrest for another offence (in this case indecency) for a further twenty four hours, before bailing.

3. We do not know that there was, and there is no evidence to suggest that there was, any 'lengthy police investigation into him for his indecency offences'. Indeed, the last indecency offence was dated 2 November 1888, and this may well have been (as it often was in these cases) the only one at that time that the police were aware of. If the earlier offences, 27 July 1888, 31 August 1888, 14 October 1888, were known at the time they were committed then, surely, he would have been arrested much sooner, the first two being committed before the police were even aware that it was the start of a series of murders on 31 August. As is often the case with these offences, initial arrest would be for the last case which they were aware of, followed by revelation of the earlier offences by a process of questioning the last 'victim' who would be only too pleased to involve others he knew of to ameliorate his own situation. There is no way that they could have kept him under constant observation (he was a slippery customer anyway). Tumblety was wealthy, he did use fixed addresses, the maximum he could be sentenced to was only 2 years (and that depended on the gravity of the circumstances of the offence), and, as we know, he did get court bail anyway and so your argument against him getting bail falls down.

4. There is no evidence whatsoever that he appeared at court on 8 November and was remanded for 7 days. If you have documentary evidence for this please produce it.

5. What enquires regarding the murders in order to produce evidence against Tumblety could the police pursue? They had no evidence against any suspect - no one really disputes that. There was no solid case against anyone and Tumblety was no different.

6. As we know, many suspects, and witnesses were interrogated regarding the murders.

What facts, pray tell, did Littlechild get wrong in his letter? I am not relying on anything, I am producing the written record of a respected ex-police officer, still working as a private enquiry agent, telling us that Tumblety was amongst the suspects at the time of the murders. You must be ageing yourself to try and say that he wasn't a suspect.

Gideon Fell was a character invented by John Dickson Carr, not me, and featuring in some very good detective novels. It was also a name used by me, as I have admitted, in the past to try and prevent nonsense that I have to endure when using my real name.

Yes, you do have weird ideas, as is generally agreed on these boards and elsewhere.

I am sure that you have many wonderful qualities Trevor, you are better looking than me, you are very fit for your age, you are an eloquent and entertaining speaker to mention but a few.

[Trevor Marriott]

The Metropolitan Police crime register index entry showing 'Suggested complicity of Irish Party'.

[ATTACH]15454[/ATTACH]

So every Irish person in London at the time was regarded as a terrorist or sympathizer.

Stop trying to muddy the waters.

[Trevor Marriott]

Actually it's au contraire. However, you may like to get your English straight before moving on to French.

As regards the granting of bail by an officer in charge of a police station in Victorian times you may wish to consult the Metropolitan Police Act, 1829, section 9; the Metropolitan Police Act, 1839, section 71; and the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, section 38. The offence of gross indecency under section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885, was a misdemeanor, not a felony, and was punishable with a maximum of two years imprisonment. It is necessary to understand what may have been going on in 1888. Don't forget, the Victorian police had a 'ways and means act' the same as you did.

As I described, Tumblety was initially arrested on suspicion of 'being concerned in' the Whitechapel murders, as a Ripper suspect. He tells us this much in his January 1889 interview. As we know, there were dozens of suspects arrested in 1888 on suspicion of the murders on the flimsiest excuse, and just as many released within a day or so when they were either cleared or nothing could be proved. So it would be nothing unusual, in that climate, for Tumblety to be arrested in the same way, as he described.

As I have also endlessly pointed out, they had no hard evidence against Tumblety for the murders and were probably hoping to gain an admission by interrogation which they failed to do. But they had suspicion only and, as you should know, no one can be kept or charged on suspicion not backed by any evidence. That's why so many Ripper suspects were released after arrest on suspicion.

In Tumblety's case, I suggest, they wanted to hold on to him but had nothing, other than the alleged indecency offences that he could be charged with. And they were probably still gathering evidence on those offences. The problem with the offence is well understood when it was looked on as a 'blackmailer's charter'. The 'victims', in Tumblety's case the four named males, were probably willing participators being paid by Tumblety for their services (such as the telegram boys who often provided homosexual favours for money). The problem for the police would be to persuade these males to say that Tumblety had forced them to do what they did (hence the 'by force' wording of the charge), otherwise they would be co-offenders in an indecent act and prostituting themselves. In other words the police needed them as witnesses against Tumblety and not as co-offenders.

My argument is, failing their being able to hold Tumblety as a Ripper suspect (no hard evidence) they released him for the arrest on suspicion as the Ripper then re-arrested him for the gross indecency offences; for which offences he was bailed (and possibly initially failed to answer this bail). Tumblety himself stated he had been held for a couple of days on the Ripper suspect arrest.

The most uncomfortable fact for you is that a Chief Inspector of the Special Branch in 1888 stated, categorically, that 'amongst the suspects, and to my mind a very likely one, was a Dr. T.' Obviously, you as a madcap modern theorizer think you know better than that well respected department head who was there at the time and knew more than you ever will. The madcap theories I speak of are your weird ideas such as the theft of organs and the use of half an apron as a sanitary towel (or was it as toilet paper?). And you say he does not appear in the Special Branch log (how complete or detailed is it?), but there is that Met index reference to involvement of the Irish party in the murders - and Tumblety was Irish.

Stewart
In an earlier post you said you were going to withdraw for this you should have taken your own advice the more you reply the deeper the hole is that you dig for yourself.

1. there is not one scrap of evidence to show Tumblety was ever arrested or spoken to in connection with the murders. His interview again that you seek to rely on is hardly strong evidence and the issues surrounding his motives for saying what he said have been well documented and discussed.

You again like others on here when faced with your back to the wall you resort to ridicule etc etc trying to take the sting out of the main subject.

2. Police bail to which you refer was not bailing a person or suspect to come back to a police station at a date and time in the future whilst further enquiries had taken place. There was nothing in place for the police to do that.

Police bail was bailing a person who had been charged to the next available court.

3.Tumbley was arrested on Nov 7th after a lengthy police investigation into him for his indecency offences. That arrest would have been on a warrant.

As stated it would appear they had him under surveillance and if that be the case would have likely as not know where he was on the dates of the murders. Aug 31st is a prime example of that which i have previously mentioned which you have chosen to ignore.

Having been arrested on Nov 7th and charged. The police would have to have made a decision as to what to do with him with regards to the indecency offences.

That decision would have either to have bailed him to the next available court or remand him in custody. They took the latter as would the police today having regard for the fact that Tumblety was at high risk for absconding.

he was not a UK citizen
he did not have a fixed address in the UK
the offences were such that on conviction he would have received a lengthy tern of imprisonment
likely to interfere with witnesses
likely to commit other offences.

4. He appeared at court on Nov 8th and was remanded for 7 days. At that time he was not in a position to furnish suitable sureties to put before the court to ask them to consider bail, That process took him 7 days to set up hence the granting of bail on Nov 15th with sureties.

5. Now during his incarceration the police would have had ample time to carry out any enquries you suggest with regards to the murders. In fact if they were sure then I am sure that they would have opposed bail full stop.

6. This arrest and interview with regards to the murders doesn't sit well i refer to the police code and refer you to Lord Brampton address to police officers

http://www.forgottenfutures.co.uk/policecode/code2.htm

"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"


As to Littlechild who you seek to rely on he couldn't even get the facts right in this letter. So how credible is he especially as you suggest Tumblety was on their radar.

All you rely on in the opinion of an ageing police officer in later years, and one single opinion is not enough to equate to Tumblety being a prime suspect or any other category of suspect.

As far as Tumblety is concerned you have misled people with all this rubbish about police bail and him being arrested etc etc.

Please give my regards to Gideon Fell when you see him.

Now I hear people asking who Gideon Fell is. Well Gideon fell is someone you invented was he not? A name you registered with casebook, and someone you started to exchange messages with on here with regards to propping up your Tumblety theory.

And you have the cheek to say I have weird ideas.

At least my ideas stand up to close scrutiny and cannot be totally dismissed where as your Tumblety theory is now firmly dead in the water.

I may not be able to write as eloquently as you, or being able to punctuate like you do. But I have other qualities which you will never have.

[Stewart P Evans]

Tedious

One of the most tedious aspects of 'discussions' like this is that you have to keep repeating yourself, even when your arguments have already appeared in print in the past, but others choose to ignore them.

Apropos of Tumblety arriving in the USA as a fugitive 'from British justice' it is, again, necessary to get this into the correct context. The press reports stated that Inspector Byrnes of the NYPD had been asked by Scotland Yard to watch Tumblety on his arrival. First off, we have to realize that Byrnes, like Tumblety, was an Irish-American and that his sympathies were unlikely to lie with the London Police. It was also noted that Byrnes was not exactly a paragon of virtue (there were reports of corruption against him).

Secondly we have to note that the legal situation regarding Tumblety as a fugitive was not as a Whitechapel suspect (there was no hard evidence) but as a fugitive from bail for offences of gross indecency which was a misdemeanor and for which there were no powers of extradition - Byrnes couldn't therefore arrest Tumblety anyway. The English police's only hope was that they could get Tumblety if he stepped on Canadian soil where British law applied.