Jack the Ripper-The Secret Police Files

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi All
May I take this opportunity of making everyone aware that my book “Jack the Ripper-The Secret Police Files” first published in 2013 has now been significantly updated.

These updates include a lengthy new chapter which questions the medical evidence, opinions, and conclusions given by the doctors directly involved in the Murders in 1888. This historical evidence has now been assessed and re evaluated by a modern day forensic pathologist Dr Michael Biggs. The results of which will now make us re think the way we have looked at these murders from a medical and evidential perspective.

There is also a new chapter relating to The Thames Torso Murders and the medical evidence given by Victorian doctors. Dr Biggs has also assessed and evaluated this medical evidence in an attempt to establish once and for all if one, some, or all of the victims were the subject of murder or other plausible explanations.

Further new chapters cover The Special Branch Ledgers and what has finally happened to them, along with the Kosminski shawl, and my assessment of the evidence suggesting that Charles Lechmere could have murdered Polly Nicholls and others.

For those who have already purchased this book I am offering free updates to those who e mail or message me with proof of purchase of the original publication.

For those who have not already acquired this book here is a link to purchase

http://amzn.to/1IcP0Hx

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[PaulB]

When I tried to download the book it said 'Read Now' because I had already bought the book. Have you done whatever it is that is required for Amazon to know that the book now on offer is an unpated and revised edition? I don't know how you plan to deliver a free Kindle edition on being provided with proof of purchase. A friend found it fraught with difficulties. Have to encountered any pproblems and resolved them?
Paul

[John G]

Posted this yesterday, but it disappeared. Received an email from Amazon inviting me to update Trevor's book. I simply clicked on the link to "manage your content and devices" and from there it was a simple process to effect the update.

Thanks for this Trouble-free update process, Trevor. By the way, some fascinating insights by the forensic pathologist, Dr Biggs.

[Tom_Wescott]

I downloaded the supposedly updated version with all the typos and errors corrected, and yet I'm still 'Westcott' and everything regarding myself and Le Grand is still completely misrepresented.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Scott Nelson]

I thought your suspect was John Sachell.

[Scott Nelson]

Or Satchel, ...Satchell?

[David Orsam]

A comment on Trevor’s book in respect of Francis Tumblety.

His discussion about whether Tumblety was out of prison on 9 November and thus in a position to murder Mary Jane Kelly concludes as follows (bold highlighting added):

"All of the above facts and my thorough re-examination into Francis Tumblety suggest to me that he was in custody on the date Mary Kelly was murdered, and could have had no involvement in her murder and therefore was not Jack the Ripper."

Yet, in his book, Trevor makes clear that Mary Kelly might not have been killed by the same person who committed the earlier murders. I thought that his passage on Alice Carroll was probably the most interesting part of the book because I had never heard of this woman before but Trevor asks whether Alice Carroll was Mary Kelly and whether she was killed by someone "making it look like the work of Jack the Ripper". While he doesn’t answer the question, the fact that he can ask it casts serious doubt on his conclusion that Tumblety was not Jack the Ripper because he was in custody on the date Mary Kelly was murdered.

And lo and behold in the thread, "The Whitehall Mystery" (#459), Trevor told me:

"From my investigation I believe that there is every possibility that Kelly was not murdered by the same hand as the others and that her murder could have been made to look look (sic) like the work of another killer."

Surely Trevor sees the contradiction between the two positions.

[David Orsam]

A further comment about Trevor's book.

Although he makes no mention of it in his OP, Trevor has updated part of his chapter about Tumblety to include his objection to my claim (made in an earlier Casebook post) that bail was compulsory for an indecent assault charge, namely that Oscar Wilde was refused bail in 1895.

In summarising my argument against his claim that Tumblety must have been in prison on 9 November, Trevor states that it is argued that, "there are no examples of anyone being remanded in custody for these types of offences". Anyone who read my Casebook post on the subject will know that not only did I not say this but that Trevor was perfectly aware of this fact because, in the "Cracking the Calendar Code" thread, in response to his question: "If bail before committal was at the discretion of the magistrate what circumstances would cause the magistrate to use his discretion and not grant bail?" I answered him with examples of situations (involving misdemeanour offences for which bail was compulsory after committal) where bail was not granted prior to committal due to the possibility of further, more serious charges being brought (#185). He certainly read this post because he cited it in full in his response (#197). Perhaps it is not surprising that Trevor has misunderstood my argument because he attributes it in his book to "researchers", when it was, in fact, only me, so he must have imagined the others as well as their imaginary arguments.

The fact that Oscar Wilde was refused bail at his remand hearings, when there was the prospect of further more serious charges being brought, is not in itself terribly surprising, therefore, but Trevor does not inform his readers of this, making it appear that he has found the only example of bail being refused for this type of offence prior to committal.

Trevor also makes the point that Wilde was refused bail following his committal for trial too but he does not inform his readers what the significance of this was to the debate. My point was that, with bail being compulsory after committal for certain misdemeanour offences, magistrates would usually admit a prisoner to bail charged with those offences at the remand stage because to refuse it would be illogical. But Trevor does not clarify this in his book so any informed reader would have to be baffled as to what the issue was.

Those who remember the debate in this forum will be aware that not once did Trevor challenge my interpretation of the clear words in the Indictable Offences Act 1848 that bail for certain offences (including gross indecency) was compulsory after committal. Not once. Yet, having found an example of bail being refused after committal in a case of indecent assault, Trevor fails in his book to explain his belief as to what the Indictable Offences Act of 1848 was in fact saying. Was it compulsory or not? If it was compulsory then a refusal by a magistrate to admit to bail under the law on in 1895 could have had no possible bearing on anything that had happened seven years earlier (to Tumblety) in 1888. If it was not compulsory, then I clearly made a major error in my interpretation of the Indictable Offences Act but there is, strangely, not a squeak about this from Trevor in his book.

We are only talking about two new paragraphs in Trevor’s book but the problems don’t end there. For Trevor says that Oscar Wilde was "arrested for identical offences to those of Tumblety". Really? So Wilde was arrested for indecent assault was he? I don’t think so because that was not one of the charges against him. And in any case, the offences for which he was arrested are irrelevant. The only relevant charges for the purpose of Trevor’s argument are those which were before the magistrate at Wilde’s committal hearing. In that respect, we know that Wilde was charged with offences of conspiracy which Tumblety was not charged with. So the offences were not "identical" at all.

For reasons that can be found in the current issue of Ripperologist, the case of Oscar Wilde does not affect my Casebook postings at all and Trevor's argument in the revised edition of his book, which rests entirely on the case of Oscar Wilde, has collapsed.

[John G]

A further comment about Trevor's book.

Although he makes no mention of it in his OP, Trevor has updated part of his chapter about Tumblety to include his objection to my claim (made in an earlier Casebook post) that bail was compulsory for an indecent assault charge, namely that Oscar Wilde was refused bail in 1895.

In summarising my argument against his claim that Tumblety must have been in prison on 9 November, Trevor states that it is argued that, "there are no examples of anyone being remanded in custody for these types of offences". Anyone who read my Casebook post on the subject will know that not only did I not say this but that Trevor was perfectly aware of this fact because, in the "Cracking the Calendar Code" thread, in response to his question: "If bail before committal was at the discretion of the magistrate what circumstances would cause the magistrate to use his discretion and not grant bail?" I answered him with examples of situations (involving misdemeanour offences for which bail was compulsory after committal) where bail was not granted prior to committal due to the possibility of further, more serious charges being brought (#185). He certainly read this post because he cited it in full in his response (#197). Perhaps it is not surprising that Trevor has misunderstood my argument because he attributes it in his book to "researchers", when it was, in fact, only me, so he must have imagined the others as well as their imaginary arguments.

The fact that Oscar Wilde was refused bail at his remand hearings, when there was the prospect of further more serious charges being brought, is not in itself terribly surprising, therefore, but Trevor does not inform his readers of this, making it appear that he has found the only example of bail being refused for this type of offence prior to committal.

Trevor also makes the point that Wilde was refused bail following his committal for trial too but he does not inform his readers what the significance of this was to the debate. My point was that, with bail being compulsory after committal for certain misdemeanour offences, magistrates would usually admit a prisoner to bail charged with those offences at the remand stage because to refuse it would be illogical. But Trevor does not clarify this in his book so any informed reader would have to be baffled as to what the issue was.

Those who remember the debate in this forum will be aware that not once did Trevor challenge my interpretation of the clear words in the Indictable Offences Act 1848 that bail for certain offences (including gross indecency) was compulsory after committal. Not once. Yet, having found an example of bail being refused after committal in a case of indecent assault, Trevor fails in his book to explain his belief as to what the Indictable Offences Act of 1848 was in fact saying. Was it compulsory or not? If it was compulsory then a refusal by a magistrate to admit to bail under the law on in 1895 could have had no possible bearing on anything that had happened seven years earlier (to Tumblety) in 1888. If it was not compulsory, then I clearly made a major error in my interpretation of the Indictable Offences Act but there is, strangely, not a squeak about this from Trevor in his book.

We are only talking about two new paragraphs in Trevor’s book but the problems don’t end there. For Trevor says that Oscar Wilde was "arrested for identical offences to those of Tumblety". Really? So Wilde was arrested for indecent assault was he? I don’t think so because that was not one of the charges against him. And in any case, the offences for which he was arrested are irrelevant. The only relevant charges for the purpose of Trevor’s argument are those which were before the magistrate at Wilde’s committal hearing. In that respect, we know that Wilde was charged with offences of conspiracy which Tumblety was not charged with. So the offences were not "identical" at all.

For reasons that can be found in the current issue of Ripperologist, the case of Oscar Wilde does not affect my Casebook postings at all and Trevor's argument in the revised edition of his book, which rests entirely on the case of Oscar Wilde, has collapsed.

Hello David,

But presumably, in respect of Tumblety, there is the possibility that the police could have intimidated to the magistrates, at the remand hearing, that more serious charges might follow, I.e buggery (a felony).

[David Orsam]

Hello David,

But presumably, in respect of Tumblety, there is the possibility that the police could have intimidated to the magistrates, at the remand hearing, that more serious charges might follow, I.e buggery (a felony).

Hi Jon,

1. That is not Trevor's argument.

2. Trevor has been trying to say that Tumblety cannot have been out of jail on 9 November, so possibilities do not assist him.

3. It is possible that the police told the magistrate that more serious charges against Tumblety could follow but it is equally possible that they did not: we don't know.

[John G]

Hi Jon,

1. That is not Trevor's argument.

2. Trevor has been trying to say that Tumblety cannot have been out of jail on 9 November, so possibilities do not assist him.

3. It is possible that the police told the magistrate that more serious charges against Tumblety could follow but it is equally possible that they did not: we don't know.

Hi David,

Thanks. And from memory, didn't your research reveal that some prisoners who were charged within felonies were still granted bail at the remand hearing? And, if so, doesn't this suggest that the Oscar Wilde case, being a cause celebre, was something of an anomaly? In other words, the authorities/ establishment were determined to make an example of Wilde?

[David Orsam]

I would add that, as far as I could tell from newspaper reports of misdemeanour offences in the 1880s, it was rare for a magistrate to be told by the police that more serious charges would, or were likely to, follow. So, on that basis, I guess the probability is that he was not told such a thing but it would be wrong to speculate on specific cases and, like I say, we just don't know. But this really relates to a different argument from a different thread and is not on the topic of Trevor's book.

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

Thanks. And from memory, didn't your research reveal that some prisoners who were charged within felonies were still granted bail at the remand hearing? And, if so, doesn't this suggest that the Oscar Wilde case, being a cause celebre, was something of an anomaly? In other words, the authorities/ establishment were determined to make an example of Wilde?

Hi John,

The logic there doesn't seem to quite follow. Yes, some prisoners charged with felonies could be granted bail at the remand stage but I think that was the exception rather than the rule and I don't see what that has to do with the Wilde case.

I have no doubt, however, that the authorities were determined to make an example of Wilde.

[Trevor Marriott]

A further comment about Trevor's book.

Although he makes no mention of it in his OP, Trevor has updated part of his chapter about Tumblety to include his objection to my claim (made in an earlier Casebook post) that bail was compulsory for an indecent assault charge, namely that Oscar Wilde was refused bail in 1895.

In summarising my argument against his claim that Tumblety must have been in prison on 9 November, Trevor states that it is argued that, "there are no examples of anyone being remanded in custody for these types of offences". Anyone who read my Casebook post on the subject will know that not only did I not say this but that Trevor was perfectly aware of this fact because, in the "Cracking the Calendar Code" thread, in response to his question: "If bail before committal was at the discretion of the magistrate what circumstances would cause the magistrate to use his discretion and not grant bail?" I answered him with examples of situations (involving misdemeanour offences for which bail was compulsory after committal) where bail was not granted prior to committal due to the possibility of further, more serious charges being brought (#185). He certainly read this post because he cited it in full in his response (#197). Perhaps it is not surprising that Trevor has misunderstood my argument because he attributes it in his book to "researchers", when it was, in fact, only me, so he must have imagined the others as well as their imaginary arguments.

The fact that Oscar Wilde was refused bail at his remand hearings, when there was the prospect of further more serious charges being brought, is not in itself terribly surprising, therefore, but Trevor does not inform his readers of this, making it appear that he has found the only example of bail being refused for this type of offence prior to committal.

Trevor also makes the point that Wilde was refused bail following his committal for trial too but he does not inform his readers what the significance of this was to the debate. My point was that, with bail being compulsory after committal for certain misdemeanour offences, magistrates would usually admit a prisoner to bail charged with those offences at the remand stage because to refuse it would be illogical. But Trevor does not clarify this in his book so any informed reader would have to be baffled as to what the issue was.

Those who remember the debate in this forum will be aware that not once did Trevor challenge my interpretation of the clear words in the Indictable Offences Act 1848 that bail for certain offences (including gross indecency) was compulsory after committal. Not once. Yet, having found an example of bail being refused after committal in a case of indecent assault, Trevor fails in his book to explain his belief as to what the Indictable Offences Act of 1848 was in fact saying. Was it compulsory or not? If it was compulsory then a refusal by a magistrate to admit to bail under the law on in 1895 could have had no possible bearing on anything that had happened seven years earlier (to Tumblety) in 1888. If it was not compulsory, then I clearly made a major error in my interpretation of the Indictable Offences Act but there is, strangely, not a squeak about this from Trevor in his book.

We are only talking about two new paragraphs in Trevor’s book but the problems don’t end there. For Trevor says that Oscar Wilde was "arrested for identical offences to those of Tumblety". Really? So Wilde was arrested for indecent assault was he? I don’t think so because that was not one of the charges against him. And in any case, the offences for which he was arrested are irrelevant. The only relevant charges for the purpose of Trevor’s argument are those which were before the magistrate at Wilde’s committal hearing. In that respect, we know that Wilde was charged with offences of conspiracy which Tumblety was not charged with. So the offences were not "identical" at all.

For reasons that can be found in the current issue of Ripperologist, the case of Oscar Wilde does not affect my Casebook postings at all and Trevor's argument in the revised edition of his book, which rests entirely on the case of Oscar Wilde, has collapsed.

The only thing that had collapsed is the content of your article and yet another failed attempt to portray yourself as a man on a mission/

I read your article and so far I have deliberately not responded I was waiting to see how long it would be before you came forward blowing your own trumpet in your inimitable fashion, seeing as no one had bother to pass any comments on your article, and because of that i bet you are really miffed, so here you are.

I do not propose to argue these points again with regards to Tumblety, save to say that you and your article unknowingly has added even more corroboration to what I have previously posted that Tumblety was not granted bail until after committal, because bail before committal was discretionary by the magistrate in midemeanours and automatic in some cases but gross indecency was not one of those.

One thing you have failed to mention is that it is a matter for the examining magistrate to decide on what charges a person is to be committed on having heard the evidence. These charges may differ form the original charge to which a person was arrested for.

So the case of Oscar Wilde is very relevant to the Tumblety issue.

Tumblety arrested for Gross Indecency on a warrant
Wilde arrested for Gross Indecency on a warrant

As far as bail is concerned Wilde had sureties in place both at the police station following his arrest and at court the following morning. In both cases despite that bail was refused.

So if someone like Wilde was not granted bail at the two initial stages of prosecution for Gross indecency how on earth could Tumblety have been, with him being a flight risk, and likely to interfere with witnesses, who had not given their committal evidence yet.

This is my last post on this matter you are quite welcome to keep up your man on a mission personna, but it cuts no ice with me the facts are there for all to see and interpret.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[David Orsam]

I read your article and so far I have deliberately not responded I was waiting to see how long it would be before you came forward blowing your own trumpet in your inimitable fashion

So you realised very well that I was right and you were wrong - otherwise why would you be waiting for me to "come forward blowing my own trumpet"?

seeing as no one had bother to pass any comments on your article, and because of that i bet you are really miffed, so here you are.

The only person I was wondering if there would be a comment from was you - because you absolutely refused to believe that I had a complete answer to your Oscar Wilde point - and your silence in the past week has been deafening.

I do not propose to argue these points again with regards to Tumblety, save to say that you and your article unknowingly has added even more corroboration to what I have previously posted that Tumblety was not granted bail until after committal, because bail before committal was discretionary by the magistrate in midemeanours and automatic in some cases but gross indecency was not one of those.

But Trevor, if gross indecency was a misdemeanour - and we know it was because it was marked as such in the Central Criminal Court calendar - and it did not fall under the list of exclusions for which bail was compulsory under section 23 of the 1848 Act, then bail must have been automatic after committal for the offence of gross indecency. That is what the 1848 said.

One thing you have failed to mention is that it is a matter for the examining magistrate to decide on what charges a person is to be committed on having heard the evidence. These charges may differ form the original charge to which a person was arrested for.

I did not fail to mention this.

Tumblety arrested for Gross Indecency on a warrant

How do you know this? We know that he was charged with offences of gross indecency AND indecent assault. But if you are saying that he was only charged with gross indecency offences at the remand hearing with indecent assault offences tagged on at the committal hearing then that would explain why his bail was increased at the committal hearing (if, indeed, it was increased) which would explain why he was back in prison on 14 November (if he had been released on 8 Nov).

Wilde arrested for Gross Indecency on a warrant

Have you seen a copy of the warrant saying this? And if so, how does this have any bearing on your big point which was that Wilde was refused bail at his committal hearing?

As far as bail is concerned Wilde had sureties in place both at the police station following his arrest and at court the following morning. In both cases despite that bail was refused.

I fail to see the relevance of this. Bail could be granted by a magistrate regardless of whether sureties were or were not in place.

So if someone like Wilde was not granted bail at the two initial stages of prosecution for Gross indecency how on earth could Tumblety have been, with him being a flight risk, and likely to interfere with witnesses, who had not given their committal evidence yet.

I have told you many, many, times that issues such as flight risk or being likely to interfere with witnesses were NOT relevant to the magistrate's decision as to whether to grant bail for a misdemeanour offence in 1888. You are imposing modern thinking onto a nineteenth century process. The risk of flight was countered by setting a high level of bail. If a prisoner was really likely to interfere with witnesses this could be dealt with by the police. And, in any event, I have no idea why you think the magistrate would have regarded Tumblety as likely to interfere with witnesses more than any other prisoner.

This is my last post on this matter

I fully understand why you say this and note with great amusement that you haven't even mentioned the evidence I produced in my article in response to your great Oscar Wilde point. Evidence which you refused to even believe I had found, despite me telling you categorically that I had.