Would Tumblety Have Assumed That He Was Being Followed?

[Trevor Marriott]

Exactly! That's the point.

So if you read the act as I have set it out with the explanations the magistrate has the right to remand a person in custody to await the commencement of a committal at the first appearance if the police are not in a position to do a committal at that stage.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[David Orsam]

The last sentence does not specify when a magistrate should grant bail does it ?

Exactly! That's the point.

[David Orsam]

Go back and follow what I have written and you will see it makes perfect sense and understanding.

I have read everything you have written Trevor (as well as having read the Act many times) and can say with some degree of confidence that what you have written does not contain any sense at all.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor I have understood the Act perfectly well and if you are going to make statements of that nature at least back it up with something sensible.

I have absolutely no idea what you think you have demonstrated with those three passages of the Act. Of course the magistrate had the power to remand prisoners before the committal hearing and was able to remand on bail, which is all it said. I've always made perfectly clear that, pre-committal, a remand was technically discretionary for all misdemeanours but that in practice bail applications for misdemeanours (especially those not specifically referred to in the Act) were almost always unchallenged and successful (for the reason I have stated on many occasions).

Thankfully, we don't need you to help us interpret the Act because we have access to textbooks of the period to assist us. I've referred to Seymour & Harris' 'Principles of the Criminal Law' on a number of occasions but perhaps seeing will be believing. The below is from the 1886 edition which was the current edition when Tumblety was before the magistrate. Please note the very last sentence of the passage and the absence of any mention of a distinction between remand and committal - because that is how bail for the type of offence Tumblety was charged with was regarded in practice.

The last sentence does not specify when a magistrate should grant bail does it ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor I have understood the Act perfectly well and if you are going to make statements of that nature at least back it up with something sensible.

I have absolutely no idea what you think you have demonstrated with those three passages of the Act. Of course the magistrate had the power to remand prisoners before the committal hearing and was able to remand on bail, which is all it said. I've always made perfectly clear that, pre-committal, a remand was technically discretionary for all misdemeanours but that in practice bail applications for misdemeanours (especially those not specifically referred to in the Act) were almost always unchallenged and successful (for the reason I have stated on many occasions).

Which you have wrongly interpreted

Thankfully, we don't need you to help us interpret the Act because we have access to textbooks of the period to assist us. I've referred to Seymour & Harris' 'Principles of the Criminal Law' on a number of occasions but perhaps seeing will be believing. The below is from the 1886 edition which was the current edition when Tumblety was before the magistrate. Please note the very last sentence of the passage and the absence of any mention of a distinction between remand and committal - because that is how bail for the type of offence Tumblety was charged with was regarded in practice.

The demonstration is complete with explanations it is all there in black and white ! Do you agree of disagree with the explanations or is the act itself wrong? Go back and follow what I have written and you will see it makes perfect sense and understanding.

The contents of Seymour Hicks is not legislation where as the act is.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Errata]

Tumblety's character, his life experiences, his nature is what decides whether or not he thought he was being followed. It might be paranoia, it might be an assumption based on his criminal past. It probably is not based on him catching a cop following him.

His fear would not be based on something that happened. It would be based on what could happen, and what could happen was really bad. Bad enough to cause him to run. Fear makes us hyper vigilant. I feel like it's a safe assumption that as a con man, he was probably more aware of what was going on around him that the average guy. Crank up the fear, rightly or wrongly, and I think someone like that assumes they are being monitored. I think the consequences of being caught are too dire that someone can afford to assume they are not being watched.

[David Orsam]

It is clear that you have not understood the relevant sections of the act

Trevor I have understood the Act perfectly well and if you are going to make statements of that nature at least back it up with something sensible.

I have absolutely no idea what you think you have demonstrated with those three passages of the Act. Of course the magistrate had the power to remand prisoners before the committal hearing and was able to remand on bail, which is all it said. I've always made perfectly clear that, pre-committal, a remand was technically discretionary for all misdemeanours but that in practice bail applications for misdemeanours (especially those not specifically referred to in the Act) were almost always unchallenged and successful (for the reason I have stated on many occasions).

Thankfully, we don't need you to help us interpret the Act because we have access to textbooks of the period to assist us. I've referred to Seymour & Harris' 'Principles of the Criminal Law' on a number of occasions but perhaps seeing will be believing. The below is from the 1886 edition which was the current edition when Tumblety was before the magistrate. Please note the very last sentence of the passage and the absence of any mention of a distinction between remand and committal - because that is how bail for the type of offence Tumblety was charged with was regarded in practice.

[David Orsam]

I am sure there are. Surveillance and undercover work is, and has always been a part of what the police do.

Trevor, I don't wish to be rude but I'm not interested in your twenty-first century assumptions about police procedure in the nineteenth century which was very different to modern police procedure and operated under very different laws to anything that you are familiar with.

What I was asking for was any known examples of the police of the period keeping suspects under surveillance.

And, for the avoidance of doubt, I'm excluding Special Branch operations involving Irish nationalists and foreign anarchists in relation to terrorism. Just normal criminal offences is what I mean.

[mklhawley]

Many thanks, everyone, for the very interesting replies to my post yesterday.



Hi Mike,

From the various replies I can see now why Tumblety might have preferred to play the waiting game and only took flight when a trial and conviction for gross indecency seemed otherwise inevitable. He probably was clued up on the law in relation to the specific offences (and of course he knew 100% what he had done and not done, and a good idea of how much evidence there could possibly be against him) and confident of a) getting bail on committal, and b) not being extradited if he were then to flee the country.

If he had indeed been arrested at some point in connection with the ripper murders (along with the 'countless hundreds of suspects the police dragged in'), he'd have been made aware of what he was being arrested for, yes? And if he had nothing to do with the murders he'd have proceeded as above and laughed at the fools from his safe haven in America, yes?

However, if he was indeed the ripper, he would have thought long and hard on what he had said or done to make the police suspect him, even though they must not have had enough evidence to take it any further. With this in mind, I am still struggling with the idea that pretty much the first thing he does when he gets out on bail on the gross indecency charges is not to consider his options for getting out of this particular frying pan, but to launch himself headlong into the fire of Mary Kelly's room, so he can acquire her heart as a consolation prize in case of his own sudden death from heart disease.



I tend to agree, especially if senior policemen in that era were capable of equating gross indecency with young men and a reported hatred of women with a desire to murder and mutilate the latter. The problem for me is that Tumblety was no Peter Sutcliffe, routinely interviewed several times for the Yorkshire Ripper murders and let go, until he finally screwed up and was caught because he stayed in the area and wasn't going to stop offending.

If Tumblety was just one of 'countless hundreds' dragged in during the ripper enquiry, for unknown reasons (sticking out like a sore thumb? looking like the Victorian perception of a rampant sodomite?), and quickly let go again for lack of any actual evidence, what else can there ever be now to set him apart from all the rest and make him any more likely to have been the killer? Simply happening to be on Littlechild's radar (before disappearing off it when he fled to America) doesn't do it for me I'm afraid.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

He was on Littlechild's, Anderson's, and Andrews' radar. All three mention Tumblety as a suspect AFTER the Kelly murder. If you look at my previous thread I posted recently, you'll see Pinkerton's comments, which hint at what was in the dossier. Littlechild did not say he was 'amongst the suspects' because of his homosexual tendencies, since he was not the one who put Tumblety on the suspect list. It was because of his bitter hatred of women.

In the past, I demonstrated that Tumblety's traits match narcissistic behavior. Even if he was JTR, he would have been angered and disgusted by Scotland Yard suspecting him. He would not have been afraid. His ubiquitous, callous behavior throughout his lifetime conforms to a narcissist, not a chicken. He escaped legal issues on countless occasions prior to this, he would not have been threatened. ...but when his own counsel said, "enjoy incarceration", he made his moves.

Thanks for the posts Caz!

Sincerely,

Mike

[caz]

Many thanks, everyone, for the very interesting replies to my post yesterday.

I'm convinced that the only reason why Tumblety absconded was because he was convinced he'd lose the gross indecency case. He knew Scotland Yard had nothing on no one for the Ripper case.

Hi Mike,

From the various replies I can see now why Tumblety might have preferred to play the waiting game and only took flight when a trial and conviction for gross indecency seemed otherwise inevitable. He probably was clued up on the law in relation to the specific offences (and of course he knew 100% what he had done and not done, and a good idea of how much evidence there could possibly be against him) and confident of a) getting bail on committal, and b) not being extradited if he were then to flee the country.

If he had indeed been arrested at some point in connection with the ripper murders (along with the 'countless hundreds of suspects the police dragged in'), he'd have been made aware of what he was being arrested for, yes? And if he had nothing to do with the murders he'd have proceeded as above and laughed at the fools from his safe haven in America, yes?

However, if he was indeed the ripper, he would have thought long and hard on what he had said or done to make the police suspect him, even though they must not have had enough evidence to take it any further. With this in mind, I am still struggling with the idea that pretty much the first thing he does when he gets out on bail on the gross indecency charges is not to consider his options for getting out of this particular frying pan, but to launch himself headlong into the fire of Mary Kelly's room, so he can acquire her heart as a consolation prize in case of his own sudden death from heart disease.

Having Tumblety as a suspect is not a shock.

I tend to agree, especially if senior policemen in that era were capable of equating gross indecency with young men and a reported hatred of women with a desire to murder and mutilate the latter. The problem for me is that Tumblety was no Peter Sutcliffe, routinely interviewed several times for the Yorkshire Ripper murders and let go, until he finally screwed up and was caught because he stayed in the area and wasn't going to stop offending.

If Tumblety was just one of 'countless hundreds' dragged in during the ripper enquiry, for unknown reasons (sticking out like a sore thumb? looking like the Victorian perception of a rampant sodomite?), and quickly let go again for lack of any actual evidence, what else can there ever be now to set him apart from all the rest and make him any more likely to have been the killer? Simply happening to be on Littlechild's radar (before disappearing off it when he fled to America) doesn't do it for me I'm afraid.

Love,

Caz
X

[Trevor Marriott]

The question I would ask is whether there are any known examples from the period of the Metropolitan Police (i.e. Scotland Yard) keeping a suspect for any crime (outside of terrorist offences) under surveillance.

I am sure there are. Surveillance and undercover work is, and has always been a part of what the police do.

Having free time I have sat and digested the Indictable offences Act which you and others seek to rely on with regards to the bail issues surrounding Tumblety, It is clear that you have not understood the relevant sections of the act

And now I am going to take the opportunity to set out below what i believe to be the correct interpretation of the sections of the Indictable offences act relevant to whether Tumblety could have been bailed on his first court apperance. I have paraphrased some of the wording to make it easier for some to understand

“And it be enacted, that if, from the absence of witnesses, or from any other reasonable cause, it shall become necessary or advisable to defer the examination or the examination of witnesses for any time it shall be lawful to, or for the justices to defer the examination or further examination of the witnesses for any time. It shall be lawful for and to the justice or justices, to whom the accused shall appear, or be brought, by his or their warrant, from time to time to remand the party accused for such time as deemed by the justices in their discretion shall be reasonable, not exceeding eight clear days, to the common gaol or house of correction”

Tumblety would have to be taken before the magistrate. The charges would already been formulated and he would be formally charged before the magistrate. The committal could not take place there and then, so it would have to be adjourned. The act clearly states “defer the examination” which means that it could not take place there and then. Examination is a term for committal proceedings in this context.

“Or if the remand be for a time not exceeding three clear days, it shall be lawful for the justices to verbally order a constable or any other party whose custody the accused may then be to continue to keep such party in his custody and to bring him before the same justices for continuing such examination.”

This relates to a part heard committal whereby perhaps a key witness was not available and so there was a need to adjourn

Provided also that instead of detaining the accused party in custody during the period to which he shall so be remanded any one justice of the peace may discharge him on him entering into a recognizance with or without sureties at the discretion of such justice or justices”


This again relates to a part heard committal and where the discretaionary powers come from

Anyone wishing to read the act in its entirety a copy can be found here

https://ucadia.s3.amazonaws.com/acts_uk/1800_1899/uk_act_1848_summary_jurisdiction_act.pdf

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

There was evidence; the letters, and who knows, they may have even contacted one or more of the young men. They clearly were not ready for the case to go to Hannay for committal to Old Bailey, since that occurred one week later. Sorry Trevor.



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."

The Evening Post investigative reporter corroborated the separate competing US newspapers. Notice how this reporter stated, "the World is probably not aware," which clearly shows they did their own investigating.


When the New York World London correspondent, E. Tracy Greaves, sent the 'Kumblety' cable news, he had no idea the New Yorker arrested on suspicion of the Whitechapel crimes then re-arrested for gross indecency was Francis Tumblety. The story wasn't even the headline story; the Sir George Arthur story was. Point, this was an unbiased account of a New Yorker arrested on suspicion.

These chain of events are confirmed by Tumblety being arrested and charged with 4 counts of gross indecency and indecent assault! The unbiased story matches the court records!




So, are the official records of every person police hauled into a police station on suspicion extant? If indeed the countless hundreds of suspects the police dragged in have been recorded, but Tumblety is suspiciously absent, then you have a point. The problem is, we have numerous London correspondents from competing New York papers, the Associated Press correspondent, the Boston Herald London correspondent, the British reporters, all in agreement that Tumblety was arrested. We then have three Scotland Yard officials commenting upon Francis Tumblety as a Ripper suspect AFTER the Kelly murder, with Littlechild corroborating the following gross indecency charge and his absconding (also reported in the same papers).

So, you don't believe the papers when they say Tumblety was first arrested on suspicion, yet these very same papers report on his gross indecency arrest (only later confirmed) which you agree just because they were reported in the court calendars. There is a reason why the arrest on suspicion was not reported in the court calendars, because the court case was only on the gross indecency and indecent assault.

Sorry Trevor, you've moved the goal post (i.e., no OFFICIAL record) in order to support your debunked theory.


Mike

I have moved nothing other than to highlight the flaws in your theory. You would expect it to be recorded somewhere or mentioned by someone that he had been arrested for the murders (Forgetting the outdated newspaper articles you refer to)

Does Littlechild mention Tumblety being arrested for the murders and then released due to lack of evidence? The answer is no.

Does any other police officer mention Tumblety in connection with the murders. The answer is again no.

Are we really expected to believe that at some point in time Tumblety was found to be in possession 4 letters from rent boys all coincidentally giving their names and addresses and specific details of the offences. Thats to much of a coincidence

Is there any evidence that these letters ever existed and if so any evidence to show the content or from who they were from or addressed to?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[mklhawley]

There has to be evidence to make a prima facie case before a person can be charged !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There was evidence; the letters, and who knows, they may have even contacted one or more of the young men. They clearly were not ready for the case to go to Hannay for committal to Old Bailey, since that occurred one week later. Sorry Trevor.

As to these letters which you seek to rely on, what do we have, again an uncorroborated newspaper report and again you seek to bolster your beliefs that Tumblety was a prime suspect by again using secondary evidence.

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."

The Evening Post investigative reporter corroborated the separate competing US newspapers. Notice how this reporter stated, "the World is probably not aware," which clearly shows they did their own investigating.


When the New York World London correspondent, E. Tracy Greaves, sent the 'Kumblety' cable news, he had no idea the New Yorker arrested on suspicion of the Whitechapel crimes then re-arrested for gross indecency was Francis Tumblety. The story wasn't even the headline story; the Sir George Arthur story was. Point, this was an unbiased account of a New Yorker arrested on suspicion.

These chain of events are confirmed by Tumblety being arrested and charged with 4 counts of gross indecency and indecent assault! The unbiased story matches the court records!

There is no official documentation to show that he was ever arrested at any time in connection with the murders. If Littlechild supposedly knew so much about him, why did he not mention his arrest, he mentions many other things albeit many of them wrong.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

So, are the official records of every person police hauled into a police station on suspicion extant? If indeed the countless hundreds of suspects the police dragged in have been recorded, but Tumblety is suspiciously absent, then you have a point. The problem is, we have numerous London correspondents from competing New York papers, the Associated Press correspondent, the Boston Herald London correspondent, the British reporters, all in agreement that Tumblety was arrested. We then have three Scotland Yard officials commenting upon Francis Tumblety as a Ripper suspect AFTER the Kelly murder, with Littlechild corroborating the following gross indecency charge and his absconding (also reported in the same papers).

So, you don't believe the papers when they say Tumblety was first arrested on suspicion, yet these very same papers report on his gross indecency arrest (only later confirmed) which you agree just because they were reported in the court calendars. There is a reason why the arrest on suspicion was not reported in the court calendars, because the court case was only on the gross indecency and indecent assault.

Sorry Trevor, you've moved the goal post (i.e., no OFFICIAL record) in order to support your debunked theory.


Mike

[Mayerling]

Hi Jeff,

I'm convinced that the only reason why Tumblety absconded was because he was convinced he'd lose the gross indecency case. He knew Scotland Yard had nothing on no one for the Ripper case.

As I stated in another thread, in January 1888, Tumblety told a reporter in Canada that he had kidney and heart disease and was in fear of sudden death. We also know his connection to the uterus. How intriguing that this man is the only suspect connected to the very three organs Jack the Ripper took, and in that same year with the kidney and heart.

Having Tumblety as a suspect is not a shock.

Sincerely,

Mike

Hi Mike,

I tend to agree about the fear of losing a gross obscenity case looms as most likely for Doc T.'s final flight.

Real problem in this sort of an issue is that we are trying to read here (and in other threads) the thought patterns of people now dead a century or so from their actions, and few ever thought of writing down their thoughts (actually only some of the police officials did, and those are conflicting enough). Naturally one might consider the writings of any of the suspects (if genuine ones existed anywhere - pace "Mr. Maybrick") as being suspect and self-serving. If Tumblety actually wrote a memoir or left letters, how open about his private life would they really be? Same with Druitt (had he lived longer) or Ostrog, Kosminski, and the rest. How trustworthy is this crew, considering what we need to know.

Interesting point you brought up regarding the claims (in that interview) of Tumblety saying he had kidney and heart disease and feared sudden death (he actually lived to 1903 or 1904 if I'm not mistaken). Had he seen a doctor or "doctored" himself for these revelations of his own health? Or did he just make it up to make up an excuse (if he had a sister in Britain in 1888 and took ill all of a sudden, wasn't she available to assist him?).

Jeff

Oh David, in answer to the issue of whom do we know who the police did put under surveillance in the era of the Ripper Case, I had mentioned Dr. Cream was being watched in May to June 1892 and was upset by this.

Jeff

[Errata]

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

Pretty much. Being seen to run might convince people you had a reason to run. Whether you did have a reason or not. Never let them see you run. It might convince them you need to be chased.

Unless there are torches and pitchforks. Then by all means run.