Would Tumblety Have Assumed That He Was Being Followed?

[GUT]

I remember when I was a teenager someone found a baby snapping turtle and was trying to kill it. Which outraged me. So I ran in and grabbed it. And I knew how to handle them, but I was fending off the guy with bat as well, and the turtle bit down on the skin between by thumb and forefinger. Which hurt, but not the worst thing since it was a baby. I named it Miles. So I took it to the creek to let it go. It wouldn't let go. I sat with my arm submerged to the elbow in the water for two hours. It wouldn't let go. I drove an hour and a half to a rescue center with that turtle my hand in a bag of water. Damn thing fell asleep. It gave every sign it was going to let go. It wouldn't let go. The biologist tells me that there's nothing he can do, because it either won't make it let go, or it will injure it fatally. The only option is to kill it, and because it's attached to my hand he can't do it the most humane way, so he has to do it the quickest way. He cut its head off and then dissected the jaws to free my hand.

It doesn't matter that it isn't food, and it doesn't matter that it apparently is not in enough danger to even keep from falling asleep. There was no reason for it to hang on. It could have lived a long life if it had let go. It was fighting a battle that did not have to be fought and was entirely the wrong time/ place/ opponent anyway. It couldn't win, it couldn't lose. IT WOULD NOT LET GO.

I can't imagine what made me think of that turtle.

Good one.

[Trevor Marriott]

I remember when I was a teenager someone found a baby snapping turtle and was trying to kill it. Which outraged me. So I ran in and grabbed it. And I knew how to handle them, but I was fending off the guy with bat as well, and the turtle bit down on the skin between by thumb and forefinger. Which hurt, but not the worst thing since it was a baby. I named it Miles. So I took it to the creek to let it go. It wouldn't let go. I sat with my arm submerged to the elbow in the water for two hours. It wouldn't let go. I drove an hour and a half to a rescue center with that turtle my hand in a bag of water. Damn thing fell asleep. It gave every sign it was going to let go. It wouldn't let go. The biologist tells me that there's nothing he can do, because it either won't make it let go, or it will injure it fatally. The only option is to kill it, and because it's attached to my hand he can't do it the most humane way, so he has to do it the quickest way. He cut its head off and then dissected the jaws to free my hand.

It doesn't matter that it isn't food, and it doesn't matter that it apparently is not in enough danger to even keep from falling asleep. There was no reason for it to hang on. It could have lived a long life if it had let go. It was fighting a battle that did not have to be fought and was entirely the wrong time/ place/ opponent anyway. It couldn't win, it couldn't lose. IT WOULD NOT LET GO.

I can't imagine what made me think of that turtle.

Rest assured I will let go now, but will Orsam with his own brand of twisted logic do the same? I am quite happy that the facts I have presented show that Tumblety would have been remanded on his first appearance and therefore locked up the night Kelly was murdered.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[GUT]

Rest assured I will let go now, but will Orsam with his own brand of twisted logic do the same? I am quite happy that the facts I have presented show that Tumblety would have been remanded on his first appearance and therefore locked up the night Kelly was murdered.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I'm glad someone's convinced.

I'm not convinced either way, so there remains the possibility he was out on the night in question.

[Trevor Marriott]

I'm glad someone's convinced.

I'm not convinced either way, so there remains the possibility he was out on the night in question.

The facts and the chain of events suggest he was not but you are entitled to your own opinion, providing you used common sense to arrive at that opinion.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[PaulB]

Whether Tumblety was a regular visitor or not would count for nothing in a courts decision to grant him bail or not. The question the court would have to ask itself would be. Could he abscond if given bail? If they were satisfied that he could then they would refuse bail. However as previously stated that refusal may week have only been a temporary measure up until his committal

They could have said they would then grant bail subject to suitable sureties being in place and accepted by the court. This could lead us back to him being granted bail 48 hours after the committal.

What you and several others seem to not understand is that the first remand court had the power to grant bail. However they had a discretionary power which entitled them to refuse bail. Now ask yourself why was that discretionary power in place for the courts to use. It was for them to use in cases such as Tumbley and his circumstances at the time.

Having a sister in The UK or doing regular business here was not something the court would take into account neither were relevant as to whether he was likely to abscond.

Now the argument has been put forward that if they thought he was a flight risk at the first court appearance how come the court gave him bail later. The answer is quite simple in granting bail the second time after the committal the police had secured their case and the evidence.

If he then went on the run, as and when he was ever re arrested they were in position to go ahead with the trial with the witness testimony already secured.

Secondly they would have the sureties money which might be regarded as a form of punishment if he absconded albeit only a financial one.

Given the same set of circumstances had he been arrested today the CPS in deciding whether to oppose bail would have to consider those same issues, they are common sense issues to protect the ends of justice.

Of course if today they opposed bail he would go before a court and make a bail application. The court would consider the objections along with the application. In this type of case bail would likely be granted with stringent bail conditions unless he had previous convictions for similar offences then part of the objection process would be to prevent him committing further offences, or he had previous for failing to appear at courts.

1. To surrender his passport
2. Not to contact witnesses or victims either directly or indirectly or by any
form of social media
3. To report and sign on at a specified police station on a daily basis
4. To live and sleep at a specified address
5. If the offences were committed at night time a night time curfew between
7pm-7am would be imposed,, and the police would visit during these time
6. If the victims were under 18 then he would not be able to be in the
company of a person under 18 unsupervised.

All of these in an attempt to stop him absconding and to keep tabs on him.
So you can see how modern day concerns and objections would have been the same concerns to the police and courts back in 1888.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Thanks fo the reply. The thing is that I certainly understand what 'discretionary powers' means and I'm sure that everyone else does too. David's argument seems to be that those discretionary powers were rarely ever used in cases such as Tumblety's - bail, he says, was granted 'almost without exception'. You seem to counter this by claiming that Tumblety was an exception in so far as he would have been considered a flight risk, but your evidence for this seems to be nothing more than that Tumblety was a foreigner. I have said that the evidence appears to have been that aside from the charges brought against him, Tumblety was (outwardly at least) a man of good character and that there was no reason to believe he would abscond. (That's the point of saying he regularly visited Britain, had business interests here, was financialy secure, had a sister living here, and, as far as you know, had no criminal record).

So, you see, you keep insisting that the magistrates had discretionary powers, which is something you seem to think people don't understand, but it is understood, David Orsam even agreeing with you, although he argues that they were rarely used. I am not sure that anything has been offered to counter that claim, except the unusual case of Wilde. The point, then, is not that the magistrates had discretionary powers, but why Tumblety's case would have been so exceptional that the magistrate would have used them, and no cogent arguments appears to be available to answer that.

As things stand, it appears that Tumblety would have been granted bail as a matter of course, along with all the attendent conditions as applied in 1888. I have no vested interest in whether Tumblety was behind bars or not, but I do have to try and get a handle on the probability either way, and I'm not seeing much to persuade me that he was.

[caz]

To flee or not to flee?

Now the argument has been put forward that if they thought he was a flight risk at the first court appearance how come the court gave him bail later. The answer is quite simple in granting bail the second time after the committal the police had secured their case and the evidence.

If he then went on the run, as and when he was ever re arrested they were in position to go ahead with the trial with the witness testimony already secured.

Secondly they would have the sureties money which might be regarded as a form of punishment if he absconded albeit only a financial one.

Hi All,

Returning to the original question, I'd want to try and see things from Tumblety's point of view, assuming he was indeed granted bail prior to committal, a) if he was the ripper and b) if he wasn't.

He knew he was a flight risk, even if nobody else had any good reason to think so until he proved it by finally taking off. So why didn't he flee at the earliest opportunity, if he believed they would be busy gathering more evidence and securing a strong case against him? Especially if he was the ripper, would he not have had the least inkling that the police might be watching his every movement, whether they suspected it might involve more rent boys or perhaps another Spitalfields unfortunate?

Would he not have worried about the evidence (either for gross indecency alone or multiple murder and mutilation into the bargain) possibly mounting up while he was initially out on bail, to the extent that he would be denied it at the committal stage if he didn't take the precaution of fleeing before then? How well acquainted with English law would he have been when he was let out on bail the first time? Could he have been confident that bail would be guaranteed if he turned up like a good boy to face those tricky types in authority a second time?

I must say I do find it hard to imagine him slaughtering anyone on November 9 after committing the previous murders and not fearing what could happen at the committal hearing to prevent him going anywhere, ever again. Did he think he was totally untouchable? Did he pay Hutchinson handsomely to watch his back while he carried on ripping? Did he don D'Onston's invisible cloak to hide his height from potential witnesses?

Love,

Caz
X

[mklhawley]

Hi All,

Returning to the original question, I'd want to try and see things from Tumblety's point of view, assuming he was indeed granted bail prior to committal, a) if he was the ripper and b) if he wasn't.

He knew he was a flight risk, even if nobody else had any good reason to think so until he proved it by finally taking off. So why didn't he flee at the earliest opportunity, if he believed they would be busy gathering more evidence and securing a strong case against him? Especially if he was the ripper, would he not have had the least inkling that the police might be watching his every movement, whether they suspected it might involve more rent boys or perhaps another Spitalfields unfortunate?

Would he not have worried about the evidence (either for gross indecency alone or multiple murder and mutilation into the bargain) possibly mounting up while he was initially out on bail, to the extent that he would be denied it at the committal stage if he didn't take the precaution of fleeing before then? How well acquainted with English law would he have been when he was let out on bail the first time? Could he have been confident that bail would be guaranteed if he turned up like a good boy to face those tricky types in authority a second time?

I must say I do find it hard to imagine him slaughtering anyone on November 9 after committing the previous murders and not fearing what could happen at the committal hearing to prevent him going anywhere, ever again. Did he think he was totally untouchable? Did he pay Hutchinson handsomely to watch his back while he carried on ripping? Did he don D'Onston's invisible cloak to hide his height from potential witnesses?

Love,

Caz
X

He had no intension of leaving London and when he was first arrested on suspicion and re-arrested for gross indecency. He knew darn well they had nothing on him. When he was finally incarcerated for two days because of the Magistrate that's when he left at the best possible time. Once he posted bail, he was gone days later.

[mklhawley]

Keep in mind, the reason for his arrest on suspicion came from his activities on the streets. The reason why Littlchild stated he was amongst the suspects was because of what they found in the dossier; i.e., his hatred of women. We don't know if they told Tumblety about their suspicions. Tumblety himself stated it was only because of the 'arrested on suspicion' event. Tumblety was not threatened by the suspicion issue. He absconded solely because he was about to spend two years in jail due to gross indecency.

[Errata]

Hi All,

Returning to the original question, I'd want to try and see things from Tumblety's point of view, assuming he was indeed granted bail prior to committal, a) if he was the ripper and b) if he wasn't.

He knew he was a flight risk, even if nobody else had any good reason to think so until he proved it by finally taking off. So why didn't he flee at the earliest opportunity, if he believed they would be busy gathering more evidence and securing a strong case against him? Especially if he was the ripper, would he not have had the least inkling that the police might be watching his every movement, whether they suspected it might involve more rent boys or perhaps another Spitalfields unfortunate?

Would he not have worried about the evidence (either for gross indecency alone or multiple murder and mutilation into the bargain) possibly mounting up while he was initially out on bail, to the extent that he would be denied it at the committal stage if he didn't take the precaution of fleeing before then? How well acquainted with English law would he have been when he was let out on bail the first time? Could he have been confident that bail would be guaranteed if he turned up like a good boy to face those tricky types in authority a second time?

I must say I do find it hard to imagine him slaughtering anyone on November 9 after committing the previous murders and not fearing what could happen at the committal hearing to prevent him going anywhere, ever again. Did he think he was totally untouchable? Did he pay Hutchinson handsomely to watch his back while he carried on ripping? Did he don D'Onston's invisible cloak to hide his height from potential witnesses?

Love,

Caz
X

Well, there is running and then there is being seen to run. And maybe he wanted the first and not the second. Maybe he felt a panicked dash would draw more attention than waiting a few days and making a quiet exit.

[Errata]

He had no intension of leaving London and when he was first arrested on suspicion and re-arrested for gross indecency. He knew darn well they had nothing on him. When he was finally incarcerated for two days because of the Magistrate that's when he left at the best possible time. Once he posted bail, he was gone days later.

But the gross indecency was not nothing. I mean, this was not theft where you can shrug and still hold your head up. While legally it wasn't the worst thing that could happen, culturally it was right up there. The cops knew. And the cops were not known to be all that tolerant, nor were they bound to any confidentiality. One mentions it to a shopkeeper in the neighborhood and Tumblety is done. Even if it wasn't at all true, the life he envisioned in London was probably over.

He didn't need the threat of arrest for the Ripper crimes to run. The gross indecency was enough. His ties to London were not such that he would have felt a powerful urge to stay and face whatever came.

[Mayerling]

He had no intension of leaving London and when he was first arrested on suspicion and re-arrested for gross indecency. He knew darn well they had nothing on him. When he was finally incarcerated for two days because of the Magistrate that's when he left at the best possible time. Once he posted bail, he was gone days later.

He may very well have felt secure when originally arrested, but he would certainly have had (in the back of his mind) that the cops on the beat were aware of him and - to some extent - his activities. Without showing inordinate signs of panic he might start wondering what they knew. A rapid bail and release (or no bail and release) might be reassuring, but his internal radar would be up. Why were they watching him at all? He would know what he had done that could have gotten him into trouble. So he might start acting more cool, depending on growing circumstances.

I do agree that cooling his heels in a gaol would have clinched it for him.

Jeff

[Mayerling]

Well, there is running and then there is being seen to run. And maybe he wanted the first and not the second. Maybe he felt a panicked dash would draw more attention than waiting a few days and making a quiet exit.

An interesting side-point could be added, if one thought about it. Was that period of 1888 in London quite the time to show a panicking dash and running away for any reason? Even if Doc. T. actually was worried about sodomy charges or similar threats from the law, he would have been aware that there was an intense notice by the public of the odd behavior of people (especially foreigners, including Americans) in London due to what was happening in Whitechapel. Under the circumstances, if he suddenly bolted wouldn't he be risking even greater problems if recaptured?? People might ponder what type of individual he was. And as Littlefield learned eventually - he had a hatred of women!

Jeff

[Mayerling]

It may help a little here to consider another of our "suspects" in a similar frame of mind only four years later.

In the spring of 1892 Dr. Thomas Neill Cream would confront the police - PRIOR TO HIS ARREST - with claims of harassment because he felt the police were watching his every move. That he merited this by his actions in sending out threatening letters and showing a marked awareness of the deaths of prostitutes is there, but he was being observed at the time. And, earlier in his odd poisoning case - in December 1891 - he suddenly departed London for no apparent reason, supposedly to clear up an inheritance matter in Canada. At that point he had sent out two, possibly three blackmail letters to important strangers (a fact he was aware of). Cream only returned to London in February 1892.

So yes, it was possible for someone to be aware of police scrutiny (or to fear police scrutiny) and prove a flight risk.

Jeff

[David Orsam]

I'm not convinced either way

Just to be absolutely clear. I have always accepted that it is possible that Tumblety was in prison on the night of the MJK murder but my argument, based on my research into the criminal law and practice of the time, is that we cannot say that he definitely, or even probably, was in prison

[David Orsam]

When he was finally incarcerated for two days because of the Magistrate that's when he left at the best possible time.

Don't forget that he was first incarcerated on 7 November.

My response to Caz is to add an extra two assumptions. The first is that when he was released on bail on 8 November (as her post assumes) his bail involved at least one surety and bail in his own recognizance. If he fled, that bail would certainly be forfeit. So, stupid to flee if he had a chance of the magistrate refusing to commit. The second assumption is that he instructed lawyers on 7 November, in which case the clear advice to him would have been that, on the indecency charges, he was guaranteed to be admitted to bail. So no downside in waiting and he might have needed more time to prepare his flight in any case.

If he was JTR and the police obtained solid evidence of this, then fleeing to the U.S. would not have helped him because murder was an extraditable offence and he would simply have been dragged back to London to face the music.