Tumblety at the Old Bailey

[caz]

Indeed so, Cris. I mean, he knew what he was and wasn't guilty of, but mud sticks.

It must have been a funny old world then, when a gay man found it preferable to connect himself publicly to a series of horrific prostitute murders than to be linked by others to 'abominable' homosexual practices.

Love,

Caz
X

[mklhawley]

Even if he was guilty of the Whitechapel crimes, he knew the only way Scotland Yard can put him in prison was Doughty and company's statements connecting him to gross indecency. I see him not wanting either issue stuck on him, which is why he pushed for the World interview in the first place.

Sincerely,

Mike

[mklhawley]

Hi Simon,

So it could be the case that Tumblety was present at Marlborough Street Court, either on his own recognizance or or in shackles, but may never have made it to Old Bailey Court House.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mike,

Certainly.

Present at the former, absent from the latter.

Regards,

Simon

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Hi Mike.

Good to see that you are back now and posting on Casebook.

I’m still waiting for your reply over on the “How do Suspects compare” board. I’m especially waiting for your evidence that proves that “Tumblety hung out in Birmingham on the weekdays and went to London on the weekends” which you stated I “conveniently failed to tell everyone about this.”

As I wrote, please provide me with the evidence is that this is true.

Thanks in advance.

Wolf.

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Hi Simon.

As there is no documentary evidence to support the contention that "A hearing was held on November 20th at the Old Bailey and the trial postponed until December 10th" it can reasonably be assumed that after being bailed on Friday 16th Tumblety flew the coop during the weekend of 17/18th November 1888.
This makes perfect sense. Tumblety would have had two days' head-start on the authorities. By Monday 19th November, when it was realised he was a "no show" at the Old Bailey, he had already arrived in France on his way to Le Havre.

So it could be the case that Tumblety was present at Marlborough Street Court, either on his own recognizance or or in shackles, but may never have made it to Old Bailey Court House.

Certainly.
Present at the former, absent from the latter.

You and I discussed this subject some time ago so I hope this isn’t redundant.

The short answer to this theory would be no. It is highly unlikely that Tumblety would have been absent from the Old Bailey. As I pointed out to you earlier, in life actions have consequences, and in the law certain illegal actions have swift, and more importantly, predictable legal consequences. Because these predictable legal consequences did not take place when they should have, if you are correct, then Tumblety must have still been in London until, at least, the 20th of November.

When Tumblety appeared before Magistrate J. L. Hannay on Friday the 16th of November Hannay did two things: he set Tumblety’s bail at £300 and ordered Tumblety to appear at the Old Bailey for the start of the November Sessions for his trial not, as has been previously thought, for his trial date to be set.

The November Sessions began on Monday the 19th of November, or only three days after he was bailed from police custody, and Tumblety would have had to appear at the Old Bailey and wait there all day, everyday until his trial was called. His legal representatives, a barrister and probably his solicitor as well, would have had to make sure that he was present and if he wasn’t they would have to find out why. If they discovered that he was missing, or had disappeared from his lodgings and nowhere to be found, they were, as Officers of the Court, duty bound to report his absence to the judge as soon as possible. Failure to do so would have serious consequences.

Once the judge was informed that Tumblety was not present, or missing, or had definitely disappeared, the judge would then revoke Tumblety’s bail and swear out a warrant for his immediate arrest. The judge’s actions would then be noted in the record for the November Session, Old Bailey. This predictable legal action did not happen during the November Sessions. Tumblety, therefore, couldn’t have just disappeared on the weekend of the 17/18th November, without anyone noticing or taking the requisite legal actions.

However, with what little we do know there appears to be no mystery surrounding the events of Tumblety’s flight:

1) Friday, 16 November, Tumblety ordered by Magistrate Hannay to appear at the start of the November Sessions at the Old Bailey for trial.
2) Monday, 19 November, November Sessions begin and Tumblety must have appeared as ordered.
3) Tuesday, 20 November, Tumblety’s trial called and Tumblety with his barrister must have appeared. Tumblety’s lawyer probably asks for a continuance, what argument he used is unknown (although if I had to guess I would suggest that something like insufficient time to mount a defence as a likely scenario). The judge apparently granted the continuance and orders Tumblety to appear at the start of the December Sessions, which began on Monday, 10 December, for his new trial.
4) With his legal problems postponed for the time being Tumblety decides to flee. His lawyers would not necessarily realize this until they couldn’t find or contact him. This probably didn’t happen until after the close of the November Sessions (on Friday, 23 November) which would explain why the November Court wasn’t informed.
5) Saturday, 24 November, Tumblety sails for New York on La Bretagne.
6) Monday, 10 December, the December Sessions begin at the Old Bailey where the record shows that the court was informed of Tumblety’s flight and his bail was immediately forfeited.

I know we discussed the fact that neither of us knew where the information regarding Tumblety’s supposed appearance at the Old Bailey on the 20th of November originally came from other than this information appears in several books. We both know that Paul Begg has written about this on more than one occasion and I think I suggested that Andy Ailiffe might have been the original source. However, it’s a long way from not knowing what the original source material was to declaring that the source material doesn’t exist.

Wolf.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Wolf,

"When Tumblety appeared before Magistrate J. L. Hannay on Friday the 16th of November Hannay did two things: he set Tumblety’s bail at £300 and ordered Tumblety to appear at the Old Bailey for the start of the November Sessions for his trial not, as has been previously thought, for his trial date to be set. YES.

"The November Sessions began on Monday the 19th of November, or only three days after he was bailed from police custody, and Tumblety would have had to appear at the Old Bailey and wait there all day, everyday until his trial was called. His legal representatives, a barrister and probably his solicitor as well, would have had to make sure that he was present and if he wasn’t they would have to find out why. If they discovered that he was missing, or had disappeared from his lodgings and nowhere to be found, they were, as Officers of the Court, duty bound to report his absence to the judge as soon as possible. Failure to do so would have serious consequences. YES

"Once the judge was informed that Tumblety was not present, or missing, or had definitely disappeared, the judge would then revoke Tumblety’s bail and swear out a warrant for his immediate arrest. The judge’s actions would then be noted in the record for the November Session, Old Bailey." YES

Okay, we are in accord.

"This predictable legal action did not happen during the November Sessions. Tumblety, therefore, couldn’t have just disappeared on the weekend of the 17/18th November, without anyone noticing or taking the requisite legal actions." HOW CAN YOU BE CERTAIN?

"However, with what little we do know there appears to be no mystery surrounding the events of Tumblety’s flight:

1) Friday, 16 November, Tumblety ordered by Magistrate Hannay to appear at the start of the November Sessions at the Old Bailey for trial. YES

2) Monday, 19 November, November Sessions begin and Tumblety must have appeared as ordered. NOT NECESSARILY.

3) Tuesday, 20 November, Tumblety’s trial called and Tumblety with his barrister must have appeared. Tumblety’s lawyer probably asks for a continuance, what argument he used is unknown (although if I had to guess I would suggest that something like insufficient time to mount a defence as a likely scenario). The judge apparently granted the continuance and orders Tumblety to appear at the start of the December Sessions, which began on Monday, 10 December, for his new trial. SURMISE.

4) With his legal problems postponed for the time being Tumblety decides to flee. His lawyers would not necessarily realize this until they couldn’t find or contact him. This probably didn’t happen until after the close of the November Sessions (on Friday, 23 November) which would explain why the November Court wasn’t informed. SURMISE

5) Saturday, 24 November, Tumblety sails for New York on La Bretagne. YES.

6) Monday, 10 December, the December Sessions begin at the Old Bailey where the record shows that the court was informed of Tumblety’s flight and his bail was immediately forfeited. YES.

Why would Tumblety wait until after Tuesday 20th November to flee abroad when he had a previous weekend in which to do it?

That "A hearing was held on November 20th at the Old Bailey and the trial postponed until December 10th" must remain a mistake/error/invention until proven otherwise.

Regards,

Simon

[Simon Wood]

Hi Wolf,

Further to our discussion, I have e-mailed you.

Regards,

Simon

[mklhawley]

Hi Wolf,

I have not forgotten, but my plan is to rent space in your head for awhile and postpone the response. Actually, that's not it. I've been asked not to respond, since there are few revelations involved. Just as Simon does not want to get into pre-November 14 details because of the upcoming 'AP Wolf-ish' article (I will definitely respect Simon's concerns), I am going to wait a bit to reply.

By the way, if the November 14 warrant was a 'warrant of committal' and not an 'arrest warrant', then it was not the 16th of November that Hannay announced Tumblety's bail, but it was the 14th. I'm not sure if this changes anything.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mike,

The upcoming article has nothing to do with AP Wolf.

On what basis are you calculating your dates?

Regards,

Simon

[mklhawley]

Hi Mike,

The upcoming article has nothing to do with AP Wolf.

On what basis are you calculating your dates?

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon,

That's why I added the "ish". The Marlborough Court records show "On remand from last session". I may be wrong, but it seems like it could be interpreted as "It's the 16th and the accused has been in custody (on remand) since the 14th" The session of the 16th is where Tumblety's bondsmen finally pulled through (it took two days), therefore, Tumblety was released on bail on the 16th.

Sincerely,
Mike

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mike,

No argument. Tumblety was released on bail on Friday 16th November.

What are you trying to get at?

Regards,

Simon

[mklhawley]

Hi Simon,

Nothing this time. That's just how I read the court document.

Mike

[David Orsam]

Hi Simon.

You and I discussed this subject some time ago so I hope this isn’t redundant.

The short answer to this theory would be no. It is highly unlikely that Tumblety would have been absent from the Old Bailey. As I pointed out to you earlier, in life actions have consequences, and in the law certain illegal actions have swift, and more importantly, predictable legal consequences. Because these predictable legal consequences did not take place when they should have, if you are correct, then Tumblety must have still been in London until, at least, the 20th of November.

When Tumblety appeared before Magistrate J. L. Hannay on Friday the 16th of November Hannay did two things: he set Tumblety’s bail at £300 and ordered Tumblety to appear at the Old Bailey for the start of the November Sessions for his trial not, as has been previously thought, for his trial date to be set.

The November Sessions began on Monday the 19th of November, or only three days after he was bailed from police custody, and Tumblety would have had to appear at the Old Bailey and wait there all day, everyday until his trial was called. His legal representatives, a barrister and probably his solicitor as well, would have had to make sure that he was present and if he wasn’t they would have to find out why. If they discovered that he was missing, or had disappeared from his lodgings and nowhere to be found, they were, as Officers of the Court, duty bound to report his absence to the judge as soon as possible. Failure to do so would have serious consequences.

Once the judge was informed that Tumblety was not present, or missing, or had definitely disappeared, the judge would then revoke Tumblety’s bail and swear out a warrant for his immediate arrest. The judge’s actions would then be noted in the record for the November Session, Old Bailey. This predictable legal action did not happen during the November Sessions. Tumblety, therefore, couldn’t have just disappeared on the weekend of the 17/18th November, without anyone noticing or taking the requisite legal actions.

However, with what little we do know there appears to be no mystery surrounding the events of Tumblety’s flight:

1) Friday, 16 November, Tumblety ordered by Magistrate Hannay to appear at the start of the November Sessions at the Old Bailey for trial.
2) Monday, 19 November, November Sessions begin and Tumblety must have appeared as ordered.
3) Tuesday, 20 November, Tumblety’s trial called and Tumblety with his barrister must have appeared. Tumblety’s lawyer probably asks for a continuance, what argument he used is unknown (although if I had to guess I would suggest that something like insufficient time to mount a defence as a likely scenario). The judge apparently granted the continuance and orders Tumblety to appear at the start of the December Sessions, which began on Monday, 10 December, for his new trial.
4) With his legal problems postponed for the time being Tumblety decides to flee. His lawyers would not necessarily realize this until they couldn’t find or contact him. This probably didn’t happen until after the close of the November Sessions (on Friday, 23 November) which would explain why the November Court wasn’t informed.
5) Saturday, 24 November, Tumblety sails for New York on La Bretagne.
6) Monday, 10 December, the December Sessions begin at the Old Bailey where the record shows that the court was informed of Tumblety’s flight and his bail was immediately forfeited.

I know we discussed the fact that neither of us knew where the information regarding Tumblety’s supposed appearance at the Old Bailey on the 20th of November originally came from other than this information appears in several books. We both know that Paul Begg has written about this on more than one occasion and I think I suggested that Andy Ailiffe might have been the original source. However, it’s a long way from not knowing what the original source material was to declaring that the source material doesn’t exist.

Wolf.

Worth mentioning, I think, that Wolf got this 100% spot on without even being aware of the document proving that there was a hearing on 20th November. Superbly accurate post.