The Men Who Arrested Tumblety

[David Orsam]

That would have been before Nov 7th the date of his arrest.

Trevor, I'm sure you must be aware of this but, in view of your above comment, it is worth repeating that Robert and myself established quite clearly in another thread that Nov 7th was the date Tumblety was remanded into custody. We do not know the date of his arrest.

[mklhawley]

Prior to the Cleveland Street scandal is was the practice of Scotland Yard to look the other way with wealthy folk enjoying the company of young boys, except if another issue forced their hand, such as in the case of Tumblety in the 1870s getting into a little hot water with a young man.

In the fall of 1888, Scotland Yard was placing huge amounts of resources into finding the Ripper. Why would they expend the effort, police force, and time investigating Francis Tumblety, an American quack on a lowly misdemeanor case? This just doesn't make sense.

What makes sense is exactly what was reported by investigative reporters (corroborated by Anderson personally getting involved and even Littlechild) that he was arrested on suspicion - like countless others on the street - then finding the letters from the boys and building a case.

Sorry Trevor.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor, I'm sure you must be aware of this but, in view of your above comment, it is worth repeating that Robert and myself established quite clearly in another thread that Nov 7th was the date Tumblety was remanded into custody. We do not know the date of his arrest.

Well the terms of the warrant were that following its execution he would have to have been brought before a magistrate as soon as practicable.

If he had been arrested on Nov 7th at a time when the court was still sitting then that is the day he would have appeared. If the court had finished for the day then he would have been detained overnight until the next day Nov 8th.

Bearing in mind a remand time would be for 7 days I suggest that in fact he did not appear at court until Nov 8th. 7 days from then takes it up to Nov 14th

He could not have been arrested before Nov 7th

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[mklhawley]

Well the terms of the warrant were that following its execution he would have to have been brought before a magistrate as soon as practicable.

If he had been arrested on Nov 7th at a time when the court was still sitting then that is the day he would have appeared. If the court had finished for the day then he would have been detained overnight until the next day Nov 8th.

Bearing in mind a remand time would be for 7 days I suggest that in fact he did not appear at court until Nov 8th. 7 days from then takes it up to Nov 14th

He could not have been arrested before Nov 7th

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

He could not have been arrested for the charges brought to Hannay for consideration to be passed onto Central Criminal Court, which means he could have been arrested on suspicion, then released. Sorry Trevor.

[Trevor Marriott]

He could not have been arrested for the charges brought to Hannay for consideration to be passed onto Central Criminal Court, which means he could have been arrested on suspicion, then released. Sorry Trevor.

You just haven't a clue do you? and furthermore you don't know what you are talking about

[David Orsam]

Trevor, you have a habit of stating as facts things which are self-evidently not facts. You refer to "the warrant" as if you have seen it. You have no idea when Tumblety was actually arrested but persist in saying it was the 7th November even though there is no evidence of this.

Just to go through your post:

Well the terms of the warrant were that following its execution he would have to have been brought before a magistrate as soon as practicable.

And what if a warrant (assuming one was issued) was issued on the 6th and he was arrested on the 6th but it was not practicable to be brought before a magistrate on the 6th?

If he had been arrested on Nov 7th

Yes, if he had been arrested on the 7th then he was arrested on the 7th but I'm saying we don't know when he was arrested. Nor do you. So there is no point in starting a sentence "If he had been arrested on the 7th". He could have been arrested on the 6th or earlier.

Bearing in mind a remand time would be for 7 days I suggest that in fact he did not appear at court until Nov 8th. 7 days from then takes it up to Nov 14th

You can suggest whatever fictional account you like but the fact is that the Central Criminal Court Calendar states as clear as day that he was [remanded] into custody [by a magistrate] on 7 November and thus he MUST have appeared in court on 7 November (to have been remanded into custody). It is very simple. If you are saying he must have come back into court on the 8th then you have snookered yourself because he might then have been bailed to return on the 14th (when he was bailed again on stricter terms, requiring two days for sureties to be sorted, so that his recorded date of bail was the 16th), thus being free to murder Mary Jane Kelly on the 9th.

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;332048]Trevor, you have a habit of stating as facts things which are self-evidently not facts. You refer to "the warrant" as if you have seen it. You have no idea when Tumblety was actually arrested but persist in saying it was the 7th November even though there is no evidence of this.

Just to go through your post:



And what if a warrant (assuming one was issued) was issued on the 6th and he was arrested on the 6th but it was not practicable to be brought before a magistrate on the 6th?





Yes, if he had been arrested on the 7th then he was arrested on the 7th but I'm saying we don't know when he was arrested. Nor do you. So there is no point in starting a sentence "If he had been arrested on the 7th". He could have been arrested on the 6th or earlier.



You can suggest whatever fictional account you like but the fact is that the Central Criminal Court Calendar states as clear as day that he was [remanded] into custody [by a magistrate] on 7 November and thus he MUST have appeared in court on 7 November (to have been remanded into custody). It is very simple. If you are saying he must have come back into court on the 8th then you have snookered yourself because he might then have been bailed to return on the 14th (when he was bailed again on stricter terms, requiring two days for sureties to be sorted, so that his recorded date of bail was the 16th), thus being free to murder Mary Jane Kelly on the 9th.[/QUOTE

To be arrested for gross indecency it could only be via a warrant unless found committing and if that had been the case then there would have been a charge relative to that.

He would not have been bailed without sureties and then come back only to be bailed again this time with sureties.

read my post correctly and then I suggest you engage your brain before putting pen to paper. You need to go and sit in a dark room with Mike Hawley

[David Orsam]

To be arrested for gross indecency it could only be via a warrant unless found committing and if that had been the case then there would have been a charge relative to that.

Trevor, as to arresting without warrant you may recall that in another thread I quoted from the correct version of the Police Code (1889 - and I have now checked that this was the same in 1888) which said:

"A constable in whose presence a misdemeanor is committed may also arrest the offender without warrant, if the circumstances render such a course necessary and the delinquent is not known. But mere information of the commission of a misdemeanor, except escape from custody or attempted felonies of a serious character, should not under ordinary circumstances be followed by arrest, unless a warrant has been obtained."

So there is a get out there that in extraordinary circumstances an arrest could occur without a warrant. Further, I don't know what you mean when you say that if Tumblety had been found committing there would have been a charge relative to that. He was charged with indecently assaulting John Douglas on 2 November and none of us know if he was arrested while committing that assault.

In any case, this side issue simply deflects attention from the actual point of discussion which is that Tumblety could have been arrested prior to 7 November.

He would not have been bailed without sureties and then come back only to be bailed again this time with sureties.

You are now arguing (without any substantiation I note) against something I haven't even said in this thread. He could have been bailed with low sureties on the 8th which were sorted very quickly, with sureties later increased to a much more troublesome amount.

read my post correctly and then I suggest you engage your brain before putting pen to paper. You need to go and sit in a dark room with Mike Hawley

You can make those kind of comments all day long but what I suggest you need to do is to read my Commendations thread very carefully and in doing so you should be able to grasp that we know for a fact that Tumblety was formally remanded into custody on 7 November and thus must have appeared in court on 7 November. You need to remove the notion from your head that the column in the Old Bailey Calendar which says "When received into Custody" means the date of arrest. As has now been firmly established, it most certainly does NOT mean that.

[mklhawley]

And comparing your slams on me (now on David) as compared to the creativity of Simon's, he wins hands down.

[Trevor Marriott]

You may have checked the police codes but you clearly don't understand them

Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
Trevor, as to arresting without warrant you may recall that in another thread I quoted from the correct version of the Police Code (1889 - and I have now checked that this was the same in 1888) which said:

"A constable in whose presence a misdemeanor is committed may also arrest the offender without warrant, if the circumstances render such a course necessary and the delinquent is not known. But mere information of the commission of a misdemeanor, except escape from custody or attempted felonies of a serious character, should not under ordinary circumstances be followed by arrest, unless a warrant has been obtained."

Emphasis on "in his presence" what is the likelihood of that occurring having regards to this type of offence

So there is a get out there that in extraordinary circumstances an arrest could occur without a warrant. Further, I don't know what you mean when you say that if Tumblety had been found committing there would have been a charge relative to that. He was charged with indecently assaulting John Douglas on 2 November and none of us know if he was arrested while committing that assault.

But if he was arrested before Nov 7th for a gross indecency offence that would have been a specific charge and he would have been before the court before Nov 7th

In any case, this side issue simply deflects attention from the actual point of discussion which is that Tumblety could have been arrested prior to 7 November.

No he couldnt

You are now arguing (without any substantiation I note) against something I haven't even said in this thread. He could have been bailed with low sureties on the 8th which were sorted very quickly, with sureties later increased to a much more troublesome amount.

Then it would have been recorded and as you have been told the police and court required up to 48 hours to validate any sureties put forward

You can make those kind of comments all day long but what I suggest you need to do is to read my Commendations thread very carefully and in doing so you should be able to grasp that we know for a fact that Tumblety was formally remanded into custody on 7 November and thus must have appeared in court on 7 November. You need to remove the notion from your head that the column in the Old Bailey Calendar which says "When received into Custody" means the date of arrest. As has now been firmly established, it most certainly does NOT mean that.

To be in custody, is to be lawfully detained under arrest. As soon as a person is arrested they are in custody. .

[mklhawley]

And knowing Assistant Commissioner Anderson had interest in Tumblety - as a Ripper suspect - post Kelly murder, corroborated by Littlechild, the Associated Press, the British Press, the US papers, and Logan, your claim falls flat.

[David Orsam]

You may have checked the police codes but you clearly don't understand them

When I read a response like this, Trevor, it just screams out to me that you are unable to contradict anything I have said.

But perhaps we can put aside the (hostile) one liners and try and adopt a more collaborative approach, maybe even accepting that these procedural issues from 1888 are quite tricky when one is looking at them in 2015.

Let me put forward a couple of scenarios and then perhaps you can tell me if they are feasible or ridiculous (and why).

Scenario 1

Like hundreds of men during the "autumn of terror" Tumblety is arrested on suspicion of being the Whitechapel murders due to exhibiting some form of suspicious behaviour. When in custody he is searched. Upon his person (or perhaps even in a locked bag he is carrying, a la George Bartlett) is found incriminating letters. Either on that basis alone, or perhaps the police first conduct a few enquiries with the senders of the letters, Tumblety is brought up before Hannay at Marlborough Street Police Court on indecency charges. Now, my question here is: would the police, having arrested Tumblety on suspicion, have needed to first go to the magistrate and obtain a warrant for the misdemeanour charge then re-arrest Tumblety THEN bring him before Hannay? Or does the fact that Tumblety was already under arrest mean that no warrant was necessary prior to his appearance before the magistrate on the 7th November?

Scenario 2

As above, Tumblety is arrested on suspicion of murder at some point in October, searched but released due to lack of evidence. However, the search having revealed incriminating correspondence suggesting possible acts of gross indecency, Tumblety is followed and watched (by detectives Dinnie & Froest). During this undercover surveillance he is caught in the act, on Friday 2 November, of committing an indecent assault upon John Douglas. He is then immediately arrested WITHOUT a warrant but then released on police bail to appear before Hannay on 7th November. Would this have been possible?

[The Baron]

A new article about Tumblety's arrest written by David Orsam with newly discovered information

https://www.orsam.co.uk/tumbletysarrest.htm

Happy Orsam Day!


The Baron

[John Savage]

Having read through this very interesting thread I am alas no wiser of what actually happened in the days leading up to Tumblety, it does not seem to me have been well conducted by the police and Magistrates, something seems to have been going on that I do not understand.
All we know is that all of the accused have been arrested for “indecent assault”, but we do not know the exact nature of the sexual activity that took place; it could have been mutual masturbation or fellatio for instance which would fall under the heading of gross indecency. It could also have included anal intercourse.
Now if whatever activity that took place they may have been charged under Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885 with gross indecency, which carried a punishment of no more than two years imprisonment with or without hard labour. Anal intercourse however was a much more serious matter and could lead to a charge of “buggery”. This is an ancient crime and the law goes back to 1553 when it was made a capital offence with a sentence of death, which was repealed in 1861 to life imprisonment.
It leads me to wonder if one or more of the accused decided to use a cut throat defence, that is to say he or they were forced into anal penetration by Tumblety, in the hope that he would then be charged with buggery and they would expect a lesser sentence. Also of course a good reason to flee the country as swiftly as possible

[Whitechapel]

I like any new information on Tumblety, but like the above after reading this article I am no more wiser as to what happened in the days leading up to Tumblety absconding.

I think you can argue it two ways, that even if relations between the Met Police and NVA were strained, this could have made it more likely that the case was passed to them. I think the Home Secretary and Met Police Commissioner were under enormous pressure to find the Ripper and resignations were called for. Tumblety as a Ripper suspect was a hot potato.

I think from the newspapers (including the mysterious Doctor at Euston) and Tumblety himself there is no doubt that he was a Ripper suspect and he could have been hanged for it. If a few indecent acts would only have got him 2 years, it pales in comparison to being a world famous mutilating serial killer, so the idea that he proclaimed himself as the Ripper to avoid the tag of indecent assaults is the wrong way round.

You can argue that the Met Police failed to find any evidence on Tumblety as the Ripper and were only too happy to buy time, even if it was through the NVA. I think for this theory to hold any credibility you would have to find evidence of the Met Police complaining about interference with their Ripper suspect by the NVA, but I don't think in this case you will find it.