New Findings on Tumblety

[mklhawley]

Hi Phil,

You have never been neutral about Tumblety, believing as Simon and Trevor does that Tumblety was in jail during the murders. By the way, I demonstrate that the reporter who broke the story of Tumblety being arrested on suspicion never spoke with Tumblety, thus, Tumblety could not have used this opportunity for free advertising. Sorry. Please don't let the readers think this, as evidenced by your posts in previous years.

As for this issue, it's not a case of getting around anything. ...as you will soon see.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Phil Carter]

Hello Mike,

Actually... you are in err. A quick private email to Mr Evans will tell you that when the book he and Mr Gainey wrote came out, I was quite enthused about it. However, I never went as far as believing it to be the truth. i.e. Tumblety was The Whitechapel murderer.

As far as the reporter never speaking to Tumblety etc.. I didnt even mention this... so where that comes from.. I do not know.. you are clearly confusing me with another poster. I wrote nothing about such a thing.

The points I raised have not been answered. All I want to see is evidence Mike. Then.. as a neutral, that, and that alone, will be considered. As far as I can see, one swallow does not make a summer. On the basis of what has been written in this thread, I,m am not enthused towards greater belief in the theory. Nothing wrong with that.

I just want evidence.. evidence that you have the Whitechapel murderer. Not the odd newspaper that says ..in Canada, that he was, whilst others, say he wasnt.. (St. James newspaper for example). Evidence does not work that way.

This isnt a personal comment Mike, for I applaud your efforts. Accusations of non neutrality are not uncommon.. let us just agree that I'm neutral enough to remain open to real evidence. Provide that.. then I may, depending on the sources etc, be more inclined to be enthusiastic.

As it is, Im afraid to say that so far on this thread nothing has been shown in any way in that form. Thats a neutral view. It isnt nice to read.. I agree. But.. its how I see it.

Tumblety looked nothing like any known description of any person seen with Mary Kelly. Now get around that one.

Tumblety was released (if it was him)..from arrest. He was not charged. He therefore.. IF it was him at Euston.. joins hundreds of others having the same fate become them.

That sir, just isnt evidence. Sorry.


Phil

[Robert]

This is from Joe.



I should point out that Jonathan Menges was a leader in the research of Captain William Melville's New Zealand radio broadcasts. Jonathan's work inspired us to look into the matter even more.




As for Archibald Bodkin requesting a postponement at the Old Bailey for his client Tumblety, you'll find that David Barrat summed it up best. This following quote of his appeared in the Casebook thread "Certificate of Indictment". It was on Post 18.




"For me, the only thing that makes sense of it all -- including the fact that Tumblety's Counsel made an application on 20 November, which must have been on instructions, and the judge respited the recognizances but did not estreat them and allowed an adjournment -- is that Tumblety was claiming to be too ill to attend the Old Bailey on 19/20 November and requested an adjournment on that basis which was granted. The trial could not have taken place in his absence because he had not pleaded."




*******************************************




Now back to the Euston matter. By clicking into this web link, you'll see that the Evening Star reported of an arrest of Dr. Tumblety in London that occurred on Sunday Nov 18th.

https://www.casebook.org/press_reports/evening_star/881127.html

The Daily Colonist reported the same thing (about Tumblety being taken into custody on Nov 18th in London) and it also provided the additional information that the arrest was made upon the arrival of the Birmingham train.




Both newspapers reported that Tumblety's arrest was in regards to the Whitechapel murders.




Other newspapers said that "Saturday Nov 17th" was the day when the Birmingham medical man was arrested at the Euston train station in London.




The New York Sun specifically reported that the arrest of Dr. Tumblety (for suspicion of being the Whitechapel murderer) occurred in London on Nov 17th.




After reading these newspaper stories, there is a sense that they all reported of one event: An arrest of a medical man who commuted by train from Birmingham to Euston. The date of that arrest most likely was Saturday Nov 17th. I think the Evening Star and The Daily Colonist were off by one day when they claimed that the arrest occurred on Sunday Nov 18th.




The Canadian Deputy Minister's private letter was in agreement with The Daily Colonist in regards to Tumblety having been the arrested Birmingham train commuter. But unlike what was written in The Daily Colonist, the Deputy Minister felt this arrest occurred on Saturday and he specifically stated how Tumblety would travel to London from Birmingham on Saturdays.




Perhaps later this week Mike can post The Daily Colonist article.

[mklhawley]

Hello Mike,

As it is, Im afraid to say that so far on this thread nothing has been shown in any way in that form. Thats a neutral view. It isnt nice to read.. I agree. But.. its how I see it.

Tumblety looked nothing like any known description of any person seen with Mary Kelly. Now get around that one.

Well, only two out of the thirty finds have been posted, Phil. Quite the rush to judgment. And I was not in err. Also, with respect to any person seen with Mary Kelly is actually irrelevant, but I do present a report of a man rushing away from the Kelly murder MATCHING the description of Tumblety quite well.

Lastly, if you can see by Joe's post, we're not even done with just the first issue.

Sorry, Phil.

[Elamarna]

Mike

On first reading the book, 2 days back, while impressed by the work involved was not really convinced, it did firm Dr T up a bit as I said at time.

Having seen the post about the "fun bits", I started to reread, at a more leisurely pace and exclude most of those bits, having already taken in the detail. Must say it does seem a different book when you exclude those parts, much more serious and points don't get lost.
I do however understand the demands of the publisher.

Not finished second read yet, but certainly a lot to consider.
Does not push him to the top, but now at about no5. so he has jumped 5 on my list.

However to take him further I think I would like proof that he was actually in Birmingham, and some official documents other than the Canadian letter that he was being watched if he was there.

Maybe I just want too much!

hope the talk goes on the podcast, shame being in UK could not get there.

Steve

[mklhawley]

Mike

On first reading the book, 2 days back, while impressed by the work involved was not really convinced, it did firm Dr T up a bit as I said at time.

Having seen the post about the "fun bits", I started to reread, at a more leisurely pace and exclude most of those bits, having already taken in the detail. Must say it does seem a different book when you exclude those parts, much more serious and points don't get lost.
I do however understand the demands of the publisher.

Not finished second read yet, but certainly a lot to consider.
Does not push him to the top, but now at about no5. so he has jumped 5 on my list.

However to take him further I think I would like proof that he was actually in Birmingham, and some official documents other than the Canadian letter that he was being watched if he was there.

Maybe I just want too much!

hope the talk goes on the podcast, shame being in UK could not get there.

Steve

Hi Steve,

Thanks, but for me, Tumblety being in Birmingham is less significant than the source for Tumblety being arrested on suspicion as Scotland Yard, three top Scotland Yard officials considering Tumblety a suspect AFTER the Kelly murder, a Scotland Yard detective following Tumblety to New York, and him being the only suspect connected to the uterus, the kidney, and the heart, etc.

More later,

Mike

[Elamarna]

Mike,

I wait to hear more, your work is very interesting and certainly worthy of length consideration.
I agree you seem to have 3 senior officers looking at him, which certainly puts him, in a exclusive grouping of 2.
For me personally the body parts issue is a red herring, but that’s just my view.
Keep up the great work, who knows what may turn up.

cheers

Steve

[mklhawley]

Mike,

I wait to hear more, your work is very interesting and certainly worthy of length consideration.
I agree you seem to have 3 senior officers looking at him, which certainly puts him, in a exclusive grouping of 2.
For me personally the body parts issue is a red herring, but that’s just my view.
Keep up the great work, who knows what may turn up.

cheers

Steve

Thanks, Steve!

[David Orsam]

Other newspapers said that "Saturday Nov 17th" was the day when the Birmingham medical man was arrested at the Euston train station in London.

In respect of the above, I would like to point out that I believe a lot of confusion was caused by the editor or sub-editor of the Boston Sunday Globe of 18 November 1888 who attached an inaccurate and misleading headline to a report from London dated 17 November 1888 reporting the arrests of Sir George Arthur and 'Dr Kumblety'.

The headline stated: 'Two Arrests on Suspicion Made Yesterday'. This gave readers the impression that both Sir George and 'Dr Kumblety' had been arrested on 17th November.

But that wasn't possible. The report itself does not give any date for the arrests but it was stated in respect of Sir George that "The affair was kept out of the newspapers." For that statement to be made, a certain period of time must have passed between the arrest and the report so that he could not have been arrested on the 17th.

With 'Dr Kumblety' it is stated that he had been committed for trial on the charge for which he had been arrested, which we know occurred on 14 November. So that report could not have been referring to an arrest on 17th November.

Yet, due to the choice of headline, I am certain that other newspapers believed that Tumblety had been arrested on 17th November, even though the report from London was not saying that at all.

Whether this has any relevance to the Canadian report linking 'Dr Kumblety' to an arrest of a medical man at Euston on 17th November I would not like to say at present.

Just to add one thing for clarity, as correctly stated by Wolf but not by Trevor, Tumblety was released on bail from Holloway prison on 16th November so if he was arrested on 17th November on a train coming from Birmingham it means he travelled from London to Birmingham and then back again in the space of 24 hours.

[David Orsam]

Thats conjecture on Joes part and should be ignored by posters on here

Tumblety`s barrister would not have been able to obtain a postponement see below

"Where the application is made by the defendant, he will be remanded and detained in custody until the next assizes or sessions; but where the application is made by the prosecutor, it is in the direction of the court either to detain the defendant in custody or admit him to bail, or to discharge him on his own recognizance’s."

It is most certainly not conjecture that the application to postpone the trial was made by Tumblety's barrister. As can be seen below from the original extract from the Central Criminal Court Book (CRIM 6/17) for 20 November 1888, the following was recorded (bold added):

'Upon application of Mr. Bodkin for defence & after hearing Mr. Muir for prosecution the case is adjourned till next session all recognizances being respited."

Trevor seems to think that if an application to postpone was made by the defence, then the defendant had to be remanded in custody and he has provided an unsourced quote to support this. Trevor has made a mistake, however, because he has cited the rules in respect of an adjournment application for a defendant charged with a felony. For a defendant charged with a misdemeanor, like Tumblety, bail was an option.

In short, there is absolutely no doubt that it was an application by Tumblety's barrister that led to the postponement and it is not conjecture at all that this was the case.

[GUT]

It is most certainly not conjecture that the application to postpone the trial was made by Tumblety's barrister. As can be seen below from the original extract from the Central Criminal Court Book (CRIM 6/17) for 20 November 1888, the following was recorded (bold added):

'Upon application of Mr. Bodkin for defence & after hearing Mr. Muir for prosecution the case is adjourned till next session all recognizances being respited."

Trevor seems to think that if an application to postpone was made by the defence, then the defendant had to be remanded in custody and he has provided an unsourced quote to support this. Trevor has made a mistake, however, because he has cited the rules in respect of an adjournment application for a defendant charged with a felony. For a defendant charged with a misdemeanor, like Tumblety, bail was an option.

In short, there is absolutely no doubt that it was an application by Tumblety's barrister that led to the postponement and it is not conjecture at all that this was the case.

Seems to thoroughly nail that issue, if it wasn't already.

[Trevor Marriott]

It is most certainly not conjecture that the application to postpone the trial was made by Tumblety's barrister. As can be seen below from the original extract from the Central Criminal Court Book (CRIM 6/17) for 20 November 1888, the following was recorded (bold added):

'Upon application of Mr. Bodkin for defence & after hearing Mr. Muir for prosecution the case is adjourned till next session all recognizances being respited."

Trevor seems to think that if an application to postpone was made by the defence, then the defendant had to be remanded in custody and he has provided an unsourced quote to support this. Trevor has made a mistake, however, because he has cited the rules in respect of an adjournment application for a defendant charged with a felony. For a defendant charged with a misdemeanor, like Tumblety, bail was an option.

In short, there is absolutely no doubt that it was an application by Tumblety's barrister that led to the postponement and it is not conjecture at all that this was the case.

Of course it is conjecture no one knows what was said by either the prosecution or the defense to the judge

Please quote the legislation for the bail option you refer to relative to this type of situation.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[David Orsam]

Of course it is conjecture no one knows what was said by either the prosecution or the defense to the judge

Please quote the legislation for the bail option you refer to relative to this type of situation.

It's not conjecture that the application for the adjournment was made by Mr Bodkin for the Defence, Trevor, which was the point I was making (because you were claiming that it was conjecture). The reason it is not conjecture is because it is stated as a fact in the Central Criminal Court Book. We do not, of course, know the basis of the application so we can only speculate as to why it was made.

You ask me to quote "legislation" for the bail option but there is no need to. The Central Criminal Court Book states very clearly that "all recognizances" for Tumblety were respited. In other words, the bail conditions set by the magistrate were to continue until the adjourned trial.

I note that you didn't provide your source for your claim that a defendant bringing an application for an adjournment would have to remain in custody until trial although it was, I believe, from section 11 of the relevant edition of 'Archbold's Pleading and Evidence in Criminal Cases' which stated:

"Indictments for felonies are tried at the same assizes or sessions at which they are preferred to and found by the grand jury. They may, however, be postponed to the next assizes or sessions at the instance of the prosecutor or the defendant, showing to the court by affidavit a sufficient cause for the delay, such as the unavoidable absence or illness of a necessary and material witness, the existence of a prejudice in the jury, and the like…It seems the trial may be postponed, on the defendant’s application, after the jury have been charged with the indictment, and before any evidence has been given in the case… Where the application has been made by the defendant, he will be remanded and detained in custody until the next assizes or sessions; but where the application is made by the prosecutor, it is in the discretion of the court either to detain the defendant in custody, or admit him to bail, or to discharge him on his own recognizances.”

As I have not only mentioned above, but also some time ago in another thread, in a post addressed to you (which you have obviously forgotten), that passage, which you partially reproduced, relates only to prisoners charged with felonies. With respect to prisoners charged with misdemeanor we find that Archbold says:

"Indictments for misdemeanors….if the court, upon the application of the person so indicted or otherwise, shall be of opinion that he ought to be allowed a further time, either to prepare for his defence or otherwise, such court may adjourn the trial of such person to the next subsequent session, upon such terms as to bail or otherwise..." (underlining added).

[Trevor Marriott]

It's not conjecture that the application for the adjournment was made by Mr Bodkin for the Defence, Trevor, which was the point I was making (because you were claiming that it was conjecture). The reason it is not conjecture is because it is stated as a fact in the Central Criminal Court Book. We do not, of course, know the basis of the application so we can only speculate as to why it was made.

You ask me to quote "legislation" for the bail option but there is no need to. The Central Criminal Court Book states very clearly that "all recognizances" for Tumblety were respited. In other words, the bail conditions set by the magistrate were to continue until the adjourned trial.

I note that you didn't provide your source for your claim that a defendant bringing an application for an adjournment would have to remain in custody until trial although it was, I believe, from section 11 of the relevant edition of 'Archbold's Pleading and Evidence in Criminal Cases' which stated:

"Indictments for felonies are tried at the same assizes or sessions at which they are preferred to and found by the grand jury. They may, however, be postponed to the next assizes or sessions at the instance of the prosecutor or the defendant, showing to the court by affidavit a sufficient cause for the delay, such as the unavoidable absence or illness of a necessary and material witness, the existence of a prejudice in the jury, and the like…It seems the trial may be postponed, on the defendant’s application, after the jury have been charged with the indictment, and before any evidence has been given in the case… Where the application has been made by the defendant, he will be remanded and detained in custody until the next assizes or sessions; but where the application is made by the prosecutor, it is in the discretion of the court either to detain the defendant in custody, or admit him to bail, or to discharge him on his own recognizances.”

As I have not only mentioned above, but also some time ago in another thread, in a post addressed to you (which you have obviously forgotten), that passage, which you partially reproduced, relates only to prisoners charged with felonies. With respect to prisoners charged with misdemeanor we find that Archbold says:

"Indictments for misdemeanors….if the court, upon the application of the person so indicted or otherwise, shall be of opinion that he ought to be allowed a further time, either to prepare for his defence or otherwise, such court may adjourn the trial of such person to the next subsequent session, upon such terms as to bail or otherwise..." (underlining added).

Just as a matter of interest what edition of Archbolds are you quoting from?

This whole exercise is somewhat pointless is it not? Because Tumblety could not have been the "medical man" referred to who was arrested at Euston.

We know he was bailed on Nov 16th, and failed to appear on Nov 20th and was never seen again here in The UK.-End of story !!!!!!!!!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Pcdunn]

Southern Gothic?

I've always been curious if Tumblety ranks higher among those in the American South, because when you get a character that bizarre in the South, he likely does have something lurking in the closet. Or something loathsome in his fridge.

Or he knits. But it's one of the two.

This post of yours made me smile, despite an achy knee and just learning we're again down a person at work-- for which I thank you.

The Tumblety news is interesting to me, as he has always been one of the more flamboyant characters connected to the Ripper crimes. And even a casual perusal of American newspapers at the Library of Congress site has proven how much they enjoyed writing about him. I'll follow these developments with interest.