Would Tumblety Have Assumed That He Was Being Followed?

[David Orsam]

Even if it did happen, how would the police have been able to put together enough evidence to be able to charge him, and take him to court the following day? Just by having in their possession a number of letters which the writers may not even gave been able to be traced or identified.

In order for them to have been of evidential value they would have to have contained explicit details of gross indecency committed by Tumblety, along with the dates of the offences, and would need to have contained the writers name and address. Now 4 potential victims all providing all of those seems hard to accept.

And the final nail in your futile attempt to keep Tumblety as a viable suspect is the fact that again even if he had been arrested as you suggest. He could not have been arrested for the gross indecency offences without a warrant, and so we get back to what I said earlier the police would have to have had sufficient evidence to go to a magistrates and ask for an arrest warrant, and if that had have been granted would have to have had their evidence in plave before they could charge him. With just a few letters that would not have been possible.

That is a very confused post Trevor.

You talk of Tumblety being taken to court "the following day" but you have no idea on what date he was arrested on suspicion on being the Whitechapel Murderer (as newspaper reports suggest he was). After finding incriminating correspondence on him, the police could have had a number of days to investigate the matter, collect evidence on the gross indecency/indecent assault charges by speaking to witnesses and obtain a warrant on the basis of that evidence. We don't actually know what the charges were at the time of his arrest, we only know what he was committed to trial for and the charges (including specific dates) could have been added between his first appearance at the Police Court following his arrest and the Committal hearing.

[Trevor Marriott]

Newsflash, his arrest on suspicion was for a different reason (or set of reasons) than why they believed he was a suspect significant enough to re-arrest him for gross indecency. Also, the re-arrest was clearly because of what they discovered in the dossier. Are you trying to say they would not continue with the investigation on the Whitechapel investigation? The fact that they wanted to interview him again confirms additional investigation.

Sorry Trevor.

In case you didn't know the police did not conduct official interviews in 1888.

After an arrest the police were not permitted to question persons arrested except under certain circumstances.

1. To establish the suspects true identity

2. When about to arrest a man without a warrant, and the answer to a particular question may operate in his interest by removing some doubt as to his guilt and so make it unnecessary to arrest him. But great care and discretion are necessary in such cases, to avoid any suggestion of an endeavor to extract an admission from him, and he should be cautioned before the question is put, that he need not answer, and that if he does his answer may be used as evidence against him.

3. If in any exceptional case it should become absolutely necessary for some urgent reason to put a question to a prisoner he should, of course, be cautioned

Extract from Lord Bramptons address to constables 1882

"When, however, a Constable has a warrant to arrest, or is about to arrest a person on his own authority, or has a person in custody for a crime, it is wrong to question such person touching the crime of which he is accused. Neither judge, magistrate nor juryman, can interrogate an accused person—unless he tenders himself as a witness, or require him to answer questions tending to incriminate himself. Much less, then, ought a Constable to do so, whose duty as regards that person is simply to arrest and detain him in safe custody. On arresting a man a Constable ought simply to read his warrant, or tell the accused the nature of the charge upon which he is arrested, leaving it to the person so arrested to say anything or nothing as he pleases. For a Constable to press any accused person to say anything with reference to the crime of which he is accused is very wrong"

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[David Orsam]

If you read Simon woods excellent book" deconstructing jack "it becomes very obvious that Tumblety was only a cover for the police to travel overseas to investigate other matters.

Without wishing to disrupt Mike's thread, I think you will find that Simon doesn't actually say this in his book. His theory is that the notion of Tumblety as a JTR suspect was itself a cover story - 'one of the most ingenious cover stories in history' - to deflect attention from his gross indecency arrest which was supposedly connected to the Cleveland Street scandal, although Simon tells us it would be 'premature' to provide any evidence of this connection so he doesn't, and consequently it is impossible to understand.

It is true that Simon has said on the boards that Superintendent Shore used Tumblety's flight to New York as a cover story to go to New York in early December 1888 but, in his book, he changes his mind and suggests that Shore sailed to New York on the Elbe, departing from Southampton on 11 November and arriving in New York on 21 November - well before Tumblety's flight - and gave an interview to a representative of the Philadelphia Times published on 25 November in which he was identified as 'Inspector Soyle'.

[mklhawley]

This statement does not fit to well with your theory does it.

If he had already been arrested and interviewed why would Andrews make that statement ?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Newsflash, his arrest on suspicion was for a different reason (or set of reasons) than why they believed he was a suspect significant enough to re-arrest him for gross indecency. Also, the re-arrest was clearly because of what they discovered in the dossier. Are you trying to say they would not continue with the investigation on the Whitechapel investigation? The fact that they wanted to interview him again confirms additional investigation.

Sorry Trevor.

[mklhawley]

Take a tip from me don't believe all you read in newspapers, they clearly distorted the facts back then, and the press are still doing so today.

I don't since it was corroborated by three Scotland Yard officials. It's interesting that you don't take your own advice, when you clearly believed the Sir George Arthur story when it was only in a "secondary source" and the exact newspaper article that stated Tumblety was arrested on suspicion. How biased.

[Trevor Marriott]

Inspector Andrews stated to the Canadian press in December 1888 that they were STILL interested in interviewing Tumblety on the Ripper case AFTER absconding.

This statement does not fit to well with your theory does it.

If he had already been arrested and interviewed why would Andrews make that statement ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Supported by no less than three Scotland Yard officials confirming Tumblety was a Ripper suspect. Assistant Commissioner Anderson requested from US chiefs of police information on Ripper suspect Tumblety AFTER the Kelly murder. Chief Inspector Littlechild stated he was 'amongst the suspects', and did so decades later, recalling in amazing detail the events of Tumblety's arrest and absconding. Inspector Andrews stated to the Canadian press in December 1888 that they were STILL interested in interviewing Tumblety on the Ripper case AFTER absconding. Who cares how you would classify this evidence, it's corroboration. Sorry Trevor.



Once they quickly realized that he was a type of doctor with a bitter hatred of women in his Scotland Yard dossier - "a fact on record" - They would have moved mountains to stay within the requirements of an arrest without a warrant. Sorry Trevor.



This is how:

Evening Post, Feb 16, 1889:

"A WHITECHAPEL SUSPECT.
"Sketch and Life of the Gifted, Eccentric, and World-famed, Dr. Tumblety."
The New York World devotes considerable space to a notice of an autobiography just published in America by Dr. Francis Tumblety, who was arrested in London on suspicion in connection with the Whitechapel murders, but who was released immediately it was found there was no evidence to incriminate him. The World is probably not aware that Dr. Tumblety was afterwards taken into custody on another charge, arising out of certain correspondence with young men which was found in his possession, that he was committed for trial at the Old Bailey, and that on the day fixed for the trial he failed to appear to his bail."
Attached Images

Sorry Trevor; it fits the facts, but your claim doesn't.

If he was taken into custody that means he was arrested, and for that to happen in the absence of him being found committing and offence of gross indecency they had no option that to go with the legal requirements and that was to obtain a warrant for his arrest, and to do that they had to produce to the magistrate evidence to justify an arrest, and then if they had sufficient to do that they would have needed sufficient to then charge him with the offences for him to be remanded in custody.

Did all of that happen overnight, or was it a case that he was only ever arrested on a warrant for gross indecency, with the police having their case nailed down before his arrest, and ready to charge and remand after arrest?

And where is there evidence to corroborate that statement that he had a hatred of women, that's another myth created by the Tumblety`ites over the years.

Take a tip from me don't believe all you read in newspapers, they clearly distorted the facts back then, and the press are still doing so today.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[mklhawley]

On suspicion of what ?

"The world is not aware of this " because it never happened

These are secondary facts, from secondary sources. i.e newspaper articles, and look at the date Feb 1889 almost 3 months after the event long after he had returned to The US

Supported by no less than three Scotland Yard officials confirming Tumblety was a Ripper suspect. Assistant Commissioner Anderson requested from US chiefs of police information on Ripper suspect Tumblety AFTER the Kelly murder. Chief Inspector Littlechild stated he was 'amongst the suspects', and did so decades later, recalling in amazing detail the events of Tumblety's arrest and absconding. Inspector Andrews stated to the Canadian press in December 1888 that they were STILL interested in interviewing Tumblety on the Ripper case AFTER absconding. Who cares how you would classify this evidence, it's corroboration. Sorry Trevor.

Even if it did happen, how would the police have been able to put together enough evidence to be able to charge him, and take him to court the following day? Just by having in their possession a number of letters which the writers may not even gave been able to be traced or identified.

Once they quickly realized that he was a type of doctor with a bitter hatred of women in his Scotland Yard dossier - "a fact on record" - They would have moved mountains to stay within the requirements of an arrest without a warrant. Sorry Trevor.

And the final nail in your futile attempt to keep Tumblety as a viable suspect is the fact that again even if he had been arrested as you suggest. He could not have been arrested for the gross indecency offences without a warrant, and so we get back to what I said earlier the police would have to have had sufficient evidence to go to a magistrates and ask for an arrest warrant, and if that had have been granted would have to have had their evidence in plave before they could charge him. With just a few letters that would not have been possible.

This is how:

Evening Post, Feb 16, 1889:

"A WHITECHAPEL SUSPECT.
"Sketch and Life of the Gifted, Eccentric, and World-famed, Dr. Tumblety."
The New York World devotes considerable space to a notice of an autobiography just published in America by Dr. Francis Tumblety, who was arrested in London on suspicion in connection with the Whitechapel murders, but who was released immediately it was found there was no evidence to incriminate him. The World is probably not aware that Dr. Tumblety was afterwards taken into custody on another charge, arising out of certain correspondence with young men which was found in his possession, that he was committed for trial at the Old Bailey, and that on the day fixed for the trial he failed to appear to his bail."
Attached Images

Sorry Trevor; it fits the facts, but your claim doesn't.

[Trevor Marriott]

Why would I want to explain an arrest on warrant when he was clearly arrested without a warrant ON SUSPICION?

Evening Post, Feb 16, 1889:

"A WHITECHAPEL SUSPECT.
"Sketch and Life of the Gifted, Eccentric, and World-famed, Dr. Tumblety."
The New York World devotes considerable space to a notice of an autobiography just published in America by Dr. Francis Tumblety, who was arrested in London on suspicion in connection with the Whitechapel murders, but who was released immediately it was found there was no evidence to incriminate him. The World is probably not aware that Dr. Tumblety was afterwards taken into custody on another charge, arising out of certain correspondence with young men which was found in his possession, that he was committed for trial at the Old Bailey, and that on the day fixed for the trial he failed to appear to his bail."
Attached Images

These letters were either found ON his possession or IN his possession at his residence. Either way, he was first arrested on suspicion.

Notice how the British reporter stated 'the World is probably not aware of this', which clearly means the letters found in his possession was a fact discovered by the British reporter.

Sorry Trevor; these are the facts.

Mike

On suspicion of what ?

"The world is not aware of this " because it never happened

These are secondary facts, from secondary sources. i.e newspaper articles, and look at the date Feb 1889 almost 3 months after the event long after he had returned to The US

Even if it did happen, how would the police have been able to put together enough evidence to be able to charge him, and take him to court the following day? Just by having in their possession a number of letters which the writers may not even gave been able to be traced or identified.

In order for them to have been of evidential value they would have to have contained explicit details of gross indecency committed by Tumblety, along with the dates of the offences, and would need to have contained the writers name and address. Now 4 potential victims all providing all of those seems hard to accept.

And the final nail in your futile attempt to keep Tumblety as a viable suspect is the fact that again even if he had been arrested as you suggest. He could not have been arrested for the gross indecency offences without a warrant, and so we get back to what I said earlier the police would have to have had sufficient evidence to go to a magistrates and ask for an arrest warrant, and if that had have been granted would have to have had their evidence in plave before they could charge him. With just a few letters that would not have been possible.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[c.d.]

So are you saying that any charge could have been an extraditable offense?

c.d.

[mklhawley]

Hello Mike,

Are you sure that T. could have been extradited back to England for the gross indecency charges? Not arguing otherwise but they seem relatively minor.

c.d.

Hi c.d., Yes it was the Dominion of Canada in 1888; although sovereign, they were still part of the British Empire. The Head of the Dominion Police, Sherwood, had an intimate relationship with Scotland Yard. Wolf V. has an excellent explanation somewhere on the boards.
Mike

[c.d.]

Hello Mike,

Are you sure that T. could have been extradited back to England for the gross indecency charges? Not arguing otherwise but they seem relatively minor.

c.d.

[mklhawley]

I feel like a snake oil salesman doesn't survive his first few years (and certainly not working the Civil War) without knowing when to run. Because nothing he does means anything unless he gets away. He could have an incredibly prosperous year long run somewhere, but it doesn't matter if he doesn't read the signs that the tide is about to turn. He was always in danger of arrest or hanging. And he was alive in 1888 because he respected those dangers, and believed in them.

Whatever else was going on in his life, I gotta think that he would have been keenly aware of the trouble he was in, or could be in. It's how he got as far as he did. He had to know. The man was never strung up by angry customers. He had to have some skills.

Hi Errata,

If you're talking about after absconding, one location Tumblety always visited in the 1880s was Toronto. He was in Toronto in early 1888, when he told a Toronto reporter that he had kidney and heart disease and was in fear of sudden death. He never did visit Canada again. Why? He knew if he stepped foot in Canada he could have been extradited back to England on the gross indecency and indecent assault charges. Tumblety never left US soil after 1888. He was still very ubiquitous, but just in the US. Interestingly, we see him getting progressively worse.

When the post-Kelly murders occurred - murders Scotland Yard believed to be at the hands of Jack the Ripper - Tumblety was in the US, so to them, this meant Tumblety must not have been the killer. He fell off their radar.

Sincerely,
Mike

[mklhawley]

So those letters also contained the dates of the offences did they ? would you care you care to publish them.


How do you explain his arrest on warrant for those offences then? The letters would not have been obtained until after his arrest and to an effect an arrest the police would have had to disclose their evidence to a magistrate for him to issue the warrant.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Why would I want to explain an arrest on warrant when he was clearly arrested without a warrant ON SUSPICION?

Evening Post, Feb 16, 1889:

"A WHITECHAPEL SUSPECT.
"Sketch and Life of the Gifted, Eccentric, and World-famed, Dr. Tumblety."
The New York World devotes considerable space to a notice of an autobiography just published in America by Dr. Francis Tumblety, who was arrested in London on suspicion in connection with the Whitechapel murders, but who was released immediately it was found there was no evidence to incriminate him. The World is probably not aware that Dr. Tumblety was afterwards taken into custody on another charge, arising out of certain correspondence with young men which was found in his possession, that he was committed for trial at the Old Bailey, and that on the day fixed for the trial he failed to appear to his bail."
Attached Images

These letters were either found ON his possession or IN his possession at his residence. Either way, he was first arrested on suspicion.

Notice how the British reporter stated 'the World is probably not aware of this', which clearly means the letters found in his possession was a fact discovered by the British reporter.

Sorry Trevor; these are the facts.

Mike

[mklhawley]

If you read Simon woods excellent book" deconstructing jack "it becomes very obvious that Tumblety was only a cover for the police to travel overseas to investigate other matters.

Pinkmoon, that's because you got sucked into Simon's spin on cherry-picked evidence. If I see more people have been sucked into this, maybe my next task will be a review based upon all the facts. ...and try not to sabotage the thread.