Would Tumblety Have Assumed That He Was Being Followed?

[Trevor Marriott]

Keep in mind, he was in front of the London police once before for soliciting a young man, but he didn't run off then. The fact that they had letters from the four young men around November 7th is a far cry from them testifying against him. Tumblety realized the case against him was pretty solid when he was in front of the Magistrate around November 14 to 16.

When are you going to understand that he could only have been arrested on a warrant for the gross indecency and that would have meant that the police already had their evidence to hand. They couldn't have simply arrested him on suspicion because the warrant meant he had to be taken before a magistrate, and how silly would they have looked saying to the magistrate when they applied for the warrant "We would like a warrant to arrest Francis Tumblety but we are sorry your worship, but we have no evidence at this time we only suspect he has been at it !

And after arrest to the magistrate "your worship now he has been arrested I am sure we can find some evidence before his committal" They would be laughed out of court.

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

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.

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.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[mklhawley]

'...had nothing on anyone.'

[mklhawley]

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

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

[mklhawley]

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.

Hi David, I agree and he likely had council on that date. My point is, the detectives discovered the four letters near this time, so the later 'slight investigation', as the papers reported, came up with the goods. His lawyer would not have stated to Tumblety on November 7 that conviction is a probability, but after receiving the testimonies of the four young men by November 14, the lawyer would have told Tumblety a less promising outcome.

When Tumblety absconded from St John around 1860, his court date was set and he likely knew the probable outcome.


Mike

[mklhawley]

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.

Keep in mind, he was in front of the London police once before for soliciting a young man, but he didn't run off then. The fact that they had letters from the four young men around November 7th is a far cry from them testifying against him. Tumblety realized the case against him was pretty solid when he was in front of the Magistrate around November 14 to 16.

[David Orsam]

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.

[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.

[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

[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

[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]

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.