Tweet
erobitha has just posted in the Tumblety, Francis forum of Casebook: Jack the Ripper Forums under the title Tumblety exonerated?
Apologies if this has already been shared.
It appears to me, reading the below, that Tumbety was in Police custody from the 7th of November 1888 until he was given bail on the 16th of November 1888. Which means he could not have killed Mary Jane Kelly. Does this exonerate him?
Source: http://<a href="https://www.findmypa...6%2F132540</a>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aethelwulf has just posted:
Can't say I've seen that before. Looks like a great find, and that FT was clearly inclined the other way!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JeffHamm has just posted i
Nice find. I seem to recall that there was always some concern about FT's opportunity for this reason - basically that he had been arrested prior to Kelly's murder and may have been in custody - the counter-argument was that he might have been out on bail if I recall correctly. In short, it wasn't established if he was or was not actually in custody at the crucial time. What you've posted seems to answer that question, and would remove him from the area on the date of Mary's murder.
Herlock's suggested some events that could occur (and did in other cases), that would allow for him to be Mary's murderer. So for those interested in FT as a suspect, ideas like the one's Herlock has suggested need to be explored to see if there is any evidence to back them up, otherwise, the above information you've presented when taken simply as it reads, puts him out of the running. When I say need to be explored, that means research into documents is required to find proof that he was let out, not simply tossing out the hypothesis that he may have been let out. The hypothesis just means we can't say this is definitive proof of him being in custody, but rather, it is evidence that places him in custody (that is how it reads after all) - so the ball is in your court where one has to hit the ball back with evidence that shows this is incorrect. Having an idea of how it might be incorrect is great because it gives one ideas to work with, but it doesn't return the serve to get the ball out of your court. It's like saying "I know there is a brilliant move on the board I could play to turn this chess game around so I would win", but saying there is a great move doesn't get rid of the mate next move, only demonstrating it on the board for everyone else to see keeps you in the game.
Ooo, aren't I just full of game-based metaphors today.
- Jeff
------------------------------------------------
rjpalmer
Actually, this isn't a nice "find." This calendar has been known about for many, many years (almost two decades) and has been discussed at length. It also has been widely misunderstood and misinterpreted. David Barrat far and away did the best analysis of these court calendars and proved beyond reasonable doubt that there is not enough information to show whether the subject was in custody or not. Tumblety Bail Revisited - Orsam Books He also wrote an article about it in the Ripperologist called "Cracking the Calendar Code." Ed Stow and Trevor Marriott disputed these findings, but Barrat set them straight with superior scholarship. Hartley is several years late to party. Stewart Evans argued, probably two decades ago, that his calendar represents police bail and a remand back into custody.
---------------------------------------------------
Jeff Hamm
Oh, my mistake, I thought this was new. The but saying he was remanded in custody on the 7th and not bailed until the 16th looked to me to indicate he was accounted for. I recall, dimly, how that time period was debates as him being in custody but maybe not etc, and didn't realise this was the document being debated.
I Guess the evidence that shows this isn't all it seems has, therefore, been shown already (which you allude to in David's work) and so we are still in a drawish position.
-Jeff
---------------------------------------------------
Herlock Sholmes;
As per David’s research it appears that it wasn’t that Tumblety was in Police custody but that on the 7th November he was remanded into custody by a magistrate which meant that he’d have been sent to Holloway Prison but it has to be said that he could have been remanded even with or without bail.
---------------------------------------------------
rjpalmer has just posted
David produced identical court calendar entries and then showed the suspect was not in custody over the entire span. In my opinion, his meticulous research was one of the highlights of "Ripperology" even though it was ultimately inconclusive--he proved there wasn't enough information to show whether the suspect was in custody the entire time or not.
Such is life.
----------------------------------------------
erobitha
Clearly, I don't follow the scholarship of David Barat as religiously as others.
Having read the article now, I find Barata makes a very laborious and long-winded case for 'inconclusive'. Fair enough.
***************
Part 1/ DO NOT POST YET
Apologies if this has already been shared.
It appears to me, reading the below, that Tumbety was in Police custody from the 7th of November 1888 until he was given bail on the 16th of November 1888. Which means he could not have killed Mary Jane Kelly. Does this exonerate him?
Source: http://<a href="https://www.findmypa...6%2F132540</a>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aethelwulf has just posted:
Can't say I've seen that before. Looks like a great find, and that FT was clearly inclined the other way!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JeffHamm has just posted i
Nice find. I seem to recall that there was always some concern about FT's opportunity for this reason - basically that he had been arrested prior to Kelly's murder and may have been in custody - the counter-argument was that he might have been out on bail if I recall correctly. In short, it wasn't established if he was or was not actually in custody at the crucial time. What you've posted seems to answer that question, and would remove him from the area on the date of Mary's murder.
Herlock's suggested some events that could occur (and did in other cases), that would allow for him to be Mary's murderer. So for those interested in FT as a suspect, ideas like the one's Herlock has suggested need to be explored to see if there is any evidence to back them up, otherwise, the above information you've presented when taken simply as it reads, puts him out of the running. When I say need to be explored, that means research into documents is required to find proof that he was let out, not simply tossing out the hypothesis that he may have been let out. The hypothesis just means we can't say this is definitive proof of him being in custody, but rather, it is evidence that places him in custody (that is how it reads after all) - so the ball is in your court where one has to hit the ball back with evidence that shows this is incorrect. Having an idea of how it might be incorrect is great because it gives one ideas to work with, but it doesn't return the serve to get the ball out of your court. It's like saying "I know there is a brilliant move on the board I could play to turn this chess game around so I would win", but saying there is a great move doesn't get rid of the mate next move, only demonstrating it on the board for everyone else to see keeps you in the game.
Ooo, aren't I just full of game-based metaphors today.
- Jeff
------------------------------------------------
rjpalmer
Actually, this isn't a nice "find." This calendar has been known about for many, many years (almost two decades) and has been discussed at length. It also has been widely misunderstood and misinterpreted. David Barrat far and away did the best analysis of these court calendars and proved beyond reasonable doubt that there is not enough information to show whether the subject was in custody or not. Tumblety Bail Revisited - Orsam Books He also wrote an article about it in the Ripperologist called "Cracking the Calendar Code." Ed Stow and Trevor Marriott disputed these findings, but Barrat set them straight with superior scholarship. Hartley is several years late to party. Stewart Evans argued, probably two decades ago, that his calendar represents police bail and a remand back into custody.
---------------------------------------------------
Jeff Hamm
Oh, my mistake, I thought this was new. The but saying he was remanded in custody on the 7th and not bailed until the 16th looked to me to indicate he was accounted for. I recall, dimly, how that time period was debates as him being in custody but maybe not etc, and didn't realise this was the document being debated.
I Guess the evidence that shows this isn't all it seems has, therefore, been shown already (which you allude to in David's work) and so we are still in a drawish position.
-Jeff
---------------------------------------------------
Herlock Sholmes;
As per David’s research it appears that it wasn’t that Tumblety was in Police custody but that on the 7th November he was remanded into custody by a magistrate which meant that he’d have been sent to Holloway Prison but it has to be said that he could have been remanded even with or without bail.
---------------------------------------------------
rjpalmer has just posted
David produced identical court calendar entries and then showed the suspect was not in custody over the entire span. In my opinion, his meticulous research was one of the highlights of "Ripperology" even though it was ultimately inconclusive--he proved there wasn't enough information to show whether the suspect was in custody the entire time or not.
Such is life.
----------------------------------------------
erobitha
Clearly, I don't follow the scholarship of David Barat as religiously as others.
Having read the article now, I find Barata makes a very laborious and long-winded case for 'inconclusive'. Fair enough.
***************
Part 1/ DO NOT POST YET
Comment