Cracking The Calendar Code

[Chris]

Now, I did have a lot more to say on the topic of Oscar Wilde - and indeed was planning to start a new thread entitled "Tumblety Goes Wilde" - but, on reflection, and given recent events in this forum, it might be best to let this subject (which seems to be quite inflammatory) die. And we are going round in circles on it in any event. I now need some time to re-write these posts into an article (and I have another long article on a Tumbelty related subject to write up) - posting on these boards takes up a huge amount of one's time - so to the extent I have more to say on the Wilde example, or anything else on Tumblety's bail, I will include it in that article.

Yes, I think that will be the best thing to do, all things considered.

What puzzles me about the Wilde case is how the magistrate could refuse him bail even at committal. But I'll be happy to wait for the answer in your article (unless anyone else here would like to explain it before then).

[David Orsam]

What puzzles me about the Wilde case is how the magistrate could refuse him bail even at committal.

I can fully answer this Chris - and it would have formed the subject of a thread on its own - but the one point that has never been made against me is that the 1848 Act (as well as all textbooks from the period, including Douglas) does not mean what it says about bail being automatic upon committal. While I fully understand your puzzlement in this case, and was looking forward to explaining it in my intended "Tumblety Goes Wilde" thread, I thought it might be better in the article. However, if the puzzlement is so great that there is pressure from members of this forum to deal with the point I will certainly do so.

[Chris]

I can fully answer this Chris - and it would have formed the subject of a thread on its own - but the one point that has never been made against me is that the 1848 Act (as well as all textbooks from the period, including Douglas) does not mean what it says about bail being automatic upon committal.

Well, when I did a bit of searching for information about Wilde I came across some references that suggested the act wasn't treated as saying what it did say. But that puzzled me even more.

[David Orsam]

Without actually posting the answer on here, I don't know what to say. I can only guarantee that you will not be puzzled when I explain it.

[Chris]

Without actually posting the answer on here, I don't know what to say. I can only guarantee that you will not be puzzled when I explain it.

I'll wait for it all to be explained in the fulness of time. (Whether others will be so patient I don't know!)

[John G]

Hello David,

A major issue for me is: what was Tumblety originally charged with? Thus, as I pointed out on the other thread, Littlechild stated that he had been arrested for "unnatural Offences." My understanding is that this was a blanket term that included sodomy, a felony.

In the case of Wilde, I believe that he was originally arrested on charges of sodomy (felony) and gross indecency (misdemeanour), but that the more serious charge was dropped at the committal hearing because it was difficult to prove.

Could it therefore be possible that, at the remand hearing, Tumblety was facing charges of sodomy (felony) but that this charged was dropped and substituted for a lesser charge of gross indecency by the time of the committal hearing? This possibility appears to be supported by the Tracy Greaves article, which states that he was rearrested on indecent assault and gross indecency charges.

Tumblety could therefore have been denied bail at the remand hearing- because he was charged with a felony, coupled with the flight risk- but allowed bail at the committal hearing, because the more serious felony charge was dropped. That would also explain why sureties didn't seem to be in place at the time of the committal hearing, delaying his release for two days.

[David Orsam]

Hi John,

You don't even need to go that far. The police need only have hinted that Tumblety might be charged with sodomy and there's the reason right there why he might have been refused bail at the remand hearing.

However, we don't have any evidence of this (nor do we have any evidence of any other actual charges - and "unnatural offences" could easily include gross indecency). Without evidence it can only be a possibility.

I have said all along that it is possible that Tumblety was in prison on 9 November. It seems to me to be far more likely - at the very least, equally possible - that he was at liberty but I don't need to go that far. The purpose of my postings has been to demonstrate that there is nothing in the legal procedure of 1888 which means that he must have imprisoned at the time. It would have been nice to prove it one way or the other but on the state of the evidence we can't.

[mklhawley]

Hi John,

You don't even need to go that far. The police need only have hinted that Tumblety might be charged with sodomy and there's the reason right there why he might have been refused bail at the remand hearing.

However, we don't have any evidence of this (nor do we have any evidence of any other actual charges - and "unnatural offences" could easily include gross indecency). Without evidence it can only be a possibility.

I have said all along that it is possible that Tumblety was in prison on 9 November. It seems to me to be far more likely - at the very least, equally possible - that he was at liberty but I don't need to go that far. The purpose of my postings has been to demonstrate that there is nothing in the legal procedure of 1888 which means that he must have imprisoned at the time. It would have been nice to prove it one way or the other but on the state of the evidence we can't.

Hi John,

Per the New York World correspondent who broke the story, he was first charged on suspicion, then he had, "been committed for trial, under a special law passed soon after the modern Babylon exposures." This dealt with gross indecency and indecent assault.

Mike

[mklhawley]

‘The Maiden Tribute of Modern Babylon’ was a series of
newspaper articles on child prostitution by editor William T
Stead which appeared in the Pall Mall Gazette during July
1885.

‘The Maiden Tribute’ led to the passing of the Criminal
Law Amendment Act of 1885, which raised the age of consent
for girls from 13 to 16. The final version of the Act also contained
the controversial Section 11, also known as the
Labouchere amendment, which criminalized male homosexuality.
This Section read:
‘Any male person who, in public or private, commits, or is
a party to the commission of, or procures, or attempts to procure
the commission by any male person of, any act of gross
indecency shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and being convicted
shall be liable at the discretion of the Court to be imprisoned
for any term not exceeding two years, with or without
hard labour.’

[John G]

Hi John,

Per the New York World correspondent who broke the story, he was first charged on suspicion, then he had, "been committed for trial, under a special law passed soon after the modern Babylon exposures." This dealt with gross indecency and indecent assault.

Mike

Hello Mike,

But didn't the article indicate that he had first been arrested on suspicion of the Whitechapel murders? If so, what if that wasn't the case but suspicion of sodomy. And, of course, David has pointed out that the police only had to hint that felonious charges could follow.

What also bothers me is that if we assume that he was out on bail following the remand hearing, after the provision of sureties, why did he need to provide fresh sureties after the committal hearing? Of course, bail may have been increased, but why would that be? I mean, wouldn't he argue that if he intended to flee he would have done so between the 7th and 14th, i.e. whilst out on bail?

[mklhawley]

Hello Mike,

But didn't the article indicate that he had first been arrested on suspicion of the Whitechapel murders? If so, what if that wasn't the case but suspicion of sodomy. And, of course, David has pointed out that the police only had to hint that felonious charges could follow.

Hi John,

An article Howard Brown discovered, explained that after he was arrested on suspicion, the letters in his possession identified his activities with the young men. The World article is clear, which conforms to Littlechild's statements, he was charged with gross indecency in order to hold him because of the Ripper case.

Sincerely,

Mike

[David Orsam]

The thing is John, you are talking about remote possibilities only. In the overwhelming number of remand hearings, the police or prosecutor did not hint at further more serious charges to be brought and the most likely charges against Tumblety at the remand hearing were the charges he was committed to trial on. I can't really see the point in speculating about it.

[John G]

Hi John,

An article Howard Brown discovered, explained that after he was arrested on suspicion, the letters in his possession identified his activities with the young men. The World article is clear, which conforms to Littlechild's statements, he was charged with gross indecency in order to hold him because of the Ripper case.

Sincerely,

Mike

Hi Mike,

But might that not suggest that the police could have hinted to the magistrate that murder charges could be added to the indictment after further investigations, thus resulting in the denial of bail? But when more serious (felony) charges were not added at committal bail was granted?

[David Orsam]

But might that not suggest that the police could have hinted to the magistrate that murder charges could be added to the indictment after further investigations, thus resulting in the denial of bail? But when more serious (felony) charges were not added at committal bail was granted?

Of course, that has never been a point in the argument I was attempting to meet, and is a very remote theoretical possibility only. In the absence of any evidence in support, it seems to me to be hardly worth considering. It certainly provides no support to the claim that Tumblety must have been in prison on 9 November 1888.

[John G]

Of course, that has never been a point in the argument I was attempting to meet, and is a very remote theoretical possibility only. In the absence of any evidence in support, it seems to me to be hardly worth considering. It certainly provides no support to the claim that Tumblety must have been in prison on 9 November 1888.

Hi David,

Thanks for reply. The issue that confuses me is why did he struggle to provide sureties following the committal hearing if he'd already been out on bail for a week? As I said, bail could have been increased, but that seems unlikely to me as he would already have been out on bail for a week, so could offer that as evidence that he had no intention to flee.