New Findings on Tumblety

[mklhawley]

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.

Here's the first 17 minutes of my lecture at RipperCon (It's also posted on the RipperCon thread). This deals with the source for Tumblety being arrested on suspicion: https://youtu.be/MAlPHxNB8Io

Mike

[David Orsam]

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

That'll be the same edition of Archbolds that you quoted from in post 21, Trevor. Remember? That quote for which you didn't provide any source reference.

[David Orsam]

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 !!!!!!!!!!!!!

This exercise hasn't been pointless for me. I wanted to establish, in the face of your strange challenge, that it was the Defence who made the application to adjourn the trial, not the Prosecution, and I've now done that. I care not whether that supports the Euston arrest story or contradicts it.

Even you must admit, however, that if Tumblety was bailed on 16th November, and thus at liberty, he could, in theory, have been arrested in London on 17th or 18th November. Whether the Daily Colonist story is true or not is another matter.

[Trevor Marriott]

This exercise hasn't been pointless for me. I wanted to establish, in the face of your strange challenge, that it was the Defence who made the application to adjourn the trial, not the Prosecution, and I've now done that. I care not whether that supports the Euston arrest story or contradicts it.

Even you must admit, however, that if Tumblety was bailed on 16th November, and thus at liberty, he could, in theory, have been arrested in London on 17th or 18th November. Whether the Daily Colonist story is true or not is another matter.

In theory yes, but in reality no. If the police had him in custody up until 16th is it hardly unlikely, that firstly new evidence warranting an arrest would have come to light in that short space of time, and secondly with the 16th being a Friday, that would have meant him travelling to Birmingham on 16th and returning on 17th/18th. So as I said before the medical man referred to as being arrested at Euston is not Tumblety.

Returning to the adjournment as I stated the entry is ambiguous because in theory the application to adjourn could have been made by the prosecution on the basis that it was they who were not able to proceed and the part where Bodkin addresses the court could simply have related to him asking for the sureties to remain in place and not be estreated.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

That'll be the same edition of Archbolds that you quoted from in post 21, Trevor. Remember? That quote for which you didn't provide any source reference.

Then perhaps we are both wrong ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[David Orsam]

Then perhaps we are both wrong ?

What on earth do you mean by that? I can't be wrong because I'm not making any positive point from Archbold.

You reproduced a quotation from that text and I said you were confusing the rule for felonies with the rule for misdemeanours, which is precisely what you were doing.

[David Orsam]

Returning to the adjournment as I stated the entry is ambiguous because in theory the application to adjourn could have been made by the prosecution on the basis that it was they who were not able to proceed and the part where Bodkin addresses the court could simply have related to him asking for the sureties to remain in place and not be estreated.

This is an unbelievable comment, Trevor, by any standards.

I've posted the extract from the Central Criminal Court Book and transcribed it. There is no ambiguity.

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

The application was for the adjournment. That is crystal clear with no room for argument. Upon application by Mr Bodkin the case was adjourned. That is what it says.

[Trevor Marriott]

What on earth do you mean by that? I can't be wrong because I'm not making any positive point from Archbold.

You reproduced a quotation from that text and I said you were confusing the rule for felonies with the rule for misdemeanours, which is precisely what you were doing.

I was merely trying to establish what version of Archbolds you were quoting from, to make sure it was from the same time period, and not a later or earlier version than 1888 when changes could have been made.

If it was from that time period then sure I will concede that I got it wrong, but having regard to your flawed arguments and statements last year when we were discussing the bail issues on Tumblety, there is no harm in double checking the facts is there. So if you would be so kind as to cite the legislation to which you refer to.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[David Orsam]

I was merely trying to establish what version of Archbolds you were quoting from, to make sure it was from the same time period, and not a later or earlier version than 1888 when changes could have been made.

If it was from that time period then sure I will concede that I got it wrong, but having regard to your flawed arguments and statements last year when we were discussing the bail issues on Tumblety, there is no harm in double checking the facts is there. So if you would be so kind as to cite the legislation to which you refer to.

You are telling me that you don't know which edition of Archbold YOU were quoting from?

It's an absurd question to ask me because I'm not making any positive point from Archbold so it simply doesn't matter what time period I'm using.

I repeat that I was referring to the same edition that you were quoting from. So if it's the wrong time period then you were wrong. If it's the right time period then you were also wrong.

If you want to discuss further, here's what needs to happen:

You put forward some "legislation" showing that if a defendant charged with a misdemeanour made an application to adjourn the trial then that defendant would be held in custody until the trial.

If you can provide such "legislation" then we can take it from there, if not there's nothing to discuss.

[Trevor Marriott]

You are telling me that you don't know which edition of Archbold YOU were quoting from?

It's an absurd question to ask me because I'm not making any positive point from Archbold so it simply doesn't matter what time period I'm using.

I repeat that I was referring to the same edition that you were quoting from. So if it's the wrong time period then you were wrong. If it's the right time period then you were also wrong.

If you want to discuss further, here's what needs to happen:

You put forward some "legislation" showing that if a defendant charged with a misdemeanour made an application to adjourn the trial then that defendant would be held in custody until the trial.

If you can provide such "legislation" then we can take it from there, if not there's nothing to discuss.

Now you are being childish "I will show you mine, if you show me yours "

I have no wish to discuss it further. The salient points surrounding this topic has been made quite clear, and once again Tumblety is back where he belongs on the suspect pile and its not near the top.

[David Orsam]

Now you are being childish "I will show you mine, if you show me yours "

That's not what I'm saying at all Trevor. I'm saying that mine is yours. And I'm saying the edition is utterly irrelevant.

If you were using the 1841 edition of Archbold then you were wrong because you were mistakenly referring to what happens in cases of felony.

Equally, if you were using the 1901 edition of Archbold then you were wrong because you were mistakenly referring to what happens in cases of felony.

And if you were using the 1888 edition of Archbold then you were wrong because you were mistakenly referring to what happens in cases of felony.

So you see, it doesn't matter what edition you were using; you were wrong because you referred to the procedure for adjournments for felonies when you should have been referring to the procedure for adjournments for misdemeanours.

[Busy Beaver]

The only woman that would have gone off with Tumblety, would have been Pearly Poll- in her words "Oooh you sound a bit diffrent".

[Varqm]

Interesting chap.But not a suspect.Cap,outfit,mustache,and even age,one could but how do you disguise "height".Witnesses clearly implied a bit taller than the victim.Chapman and Eddowes were both 5 feet tall..
Height is clear enough.Witness are unreliable defense does not hold as much when it comes to height when there is a victim to compare with.There is no way out of this.

Tumblety,Lechmere,Kosminski,Druitt,Sickert,Hutchin son,when these names are mentioned it should already come with the tag "non-suspect" and "we're looking for somebody else".