Was Tumblety in Jail during the Kelly Murder?

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Simon - police bail was mentioned by Mike in the OP but I'm not talking about this. My question was whether a magistrate could have remanded Tumblety on bail on 7 or 8 November to return for a committal hearing on 14 November. If you can show that this was not possible that's the end of it but I haven't seen anyone demonstrate this yet.

Regarding your second sentence, even if he was suspected of being a serial murderer by the police, the magistrate would only have been considering bail for the misdemeanour charge before him. So it didn't matter one jot what the police suspected Tumblety of having done.

You want an answer, yes a magistrate could have but he didn't because of the issue regarding him likely to abscond and no sureties were in place, and as was posted yesterday most were not bailed until after committal.

Now what bit of that do you not understand ?

[David Orsam]

You want an answer, yes a magistrate could have but he didn't because of the issue regarding him likely to abscond and no sureties were in place, and as was posted yesterday most were not bailed until after committal.

Now what bit of that do you not understand ?

Well, as you ask, the bit about him being "likely to abscond". How do you know that there was any information or evidence before the magistrate to suggest this?

Oh, and "no sureties were in place". How do you know that?

[David Orsam]

Also, on the sureties point, could he not have been released on his own recognizance to return on the 14th?

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

" . . . even if he was suspected of being a serial murderer by the police, the magistrate would only have been considering bail for the misdemeanour charge before him."

Sorry, David, but that makes absolutely no sense.

"Could a magistrate have remanded Tumblety on bail on 7 or 8 November to return for a committal hearing on 14 November?"

Why ask? We know for a fact that Tumblety wasn't bailed until 16 November. It took him two days, which he spent on remand, to raise the sureties.

Apply that self-same situation to him applying for bail on 7 or 8 November. He would have been held on remand until 10 November, just too late for Millers Court.

"Also, on the sureties point, could he not have been released on his own recognizance to return on the 14th?"

You might as well ask why he was not bailed on his own recognizance on the 16th.

Regards,

Simon

[Trevor Marriott]

Well, as you ask, the bit about him being "likely to abscond". How do you know that there was any information or evidence before the magistrate to suggest this?

Oh, and "no sureties were in place". How do you know that?

Because the police and court needed up to 48 hours to ensure they were suitable

One if the criteria for the granting of bail to be considered is whether the accused is likely to abscond !

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

" . . . even if he was suspected of being a serial murderer by the police, the magistrate would only have been considering bail for the misdemeanour charge before him."

Sorry, David, but that makes absolutely no sense.

How does it not make sense? It makes perfect sense. Tumblety would have been brought before the magistrate on a misdemeanour charge of gross indecency/indecent assault. When the magistrate was considering bail or custody he was most certainly NOT thinking, "is this man Jack the Ripper?". All he would have had in front of him was a man charged with a misdemeanour. So why was bail not appropriate?

"Could a magistrate have remanded Tumblety on bail on 7 or 8 November to return for a committal hearing on 14 November?"

Why ask? We know for a fact that Tumblety wasn't bailed until 16 November.

We don't know that for a fact at all. We know he was bailed ON 16 November but we have no idea whether he was bailed prior to that. Even Trevor has agreed that the answer to my question is "yes".

Apply that self-same situation to him applying for bail on 7 or 8 November. He would have been held on remand until 10 November, just too late for Millers Court.

I don't see why I should apply one situation on one date to another different situation on another date.

"Also, on the sureties point, could he not have been released on his own recognizance to return on the 14th?"

You might as well ask why he was not bailed on his own recognizance on the 16th.

The answer to that seems to me quite straightforward. As at 7/8 November, Tumblety had not been committed for trial. It often takes a while for the police to build up their case and the strength of it was presumably only apparent on the 14th. Once Tumblety was committed to trial the game had changed and sureties were now required.

The converse point has more force to me namely, if bail was appropriate on 16th November why would he not have been bailed earlier? What had changed to his advantage so that he was no longer required to be held in custody but could be safely bailed?

[David Orsam]

Because the police and court needed up to 48 hours to ensure they were suitable

"up to" includes quite a lot of time. But what about my "own recognizance" point?

One if the criteria for the granting of bail to be considered is whether the accused is likely to abscond !

You haven't answered my question. Why would the magistrate have believed, on 7/8 November, before he had been committed for trial, that Tumblety was likely to abscond on a misdemeanour charge.

[Trevor Marriott]

How does it not make sense? It makes perfect sense. Tumblety would have been brought before the magistrate on a misdemeanour charge of gross indecency/indecent assault. When the magistrate was considering bail or custody he was most certainly NOT thinking, "is this man Jack the Ripper?". All he would have had in front of him was a man charged with a misdemeanour. So why was bail not appropriate?



We don't know that for a fact at all. We know he was bailed ON 16 November but we have no idea whether he was bailed prior to that. Even Trevor has agreed that the answer to my question is "yes".




I don't see why I should apply one situation on one date to another different situation on another date.



The answer to that seems to me quite straightforward. As at 7/8 November, Tumblety had not been committed for trial. It often takes a while for the police to build up their case and the strength of it was presumably only apparent on the 14th. Once Tumblety was committed to trial the game had changed and sureties were now required.

The converse point has more force to me namely, if bail was appropriate on 16th November why would he not have been bailed earlier? What had changed to his advantage so that he was no longer required to be held in custody but could be safely bailed?

SURETIES !!!!!!!!!!

[David Orsam]

SURETIES !!!!!!!!!!

Okay, and now tell me why he could not have been released on his own recognizance.

[GUT]

Okay, and now tell me why he could not have been released on his own recognizance.

Or that the sureties put down cash.

[Trevor Marriott]

Or that the sureties put down cash.

The sureties had to sign a pledge no cash was put down !

[Trevor Marriott]

Okay, and now tell me why he could not have been released on his own recognizance.

Because he was deemed likely to abscond and on his commital why would they have asked for sureties if he had been on bail and had surrendered to that bail they would have simply extended it

[GUT]

Because he was deemed likely to abscond and on his commital why would they have asked for sureties if he had been on bail and had surrendered to that bail they would have simply extended it

They do and did change bail conditions, sometimes stricter sometimes less strict.

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

"Tell me why he could not have been released on his own recognizance."

If Tumblety could have been released on his own recognizance, why did Mr. Hannay insist on two independent sureties totalling £300.00?

To answer GUT's question—

In the matter of bail a brown envelope containing 300 smackers was not acceptable to the Court.

Read Trevor's article in Rip 127—

11 & 12 Vict. c. 42, s.23, provides:

‘The usual number of sureties is two; but sometimes only one is required, and sometimes three or more.’

Married women, infants or prisoners in custody, or persons having previously been convicted of infamous crimes, were ineligible as sureties. Persons standing surety had to be upright members of the community who could demonstrate upon oath before a Magistrate or Judge that, in the event of their bailee absconding (they were wholly responsible for his appearance at court), the value of their property, estates or business holdings was sufficient to cover the amount pledged. In the matter of default, payment was ‘to be made and levied of their several goods and chattels, lands and tenements respectively.' Standing surety could not be a cash transaction.

Regards,

Simon

[GUT]

Hi David,

"Tell me why he could not have been released on his own recognizance."

If Tumblety could have been released on his own recognizance, why did Mr. Hannay insist on two independent sureties totalling £300.00?

To answer GUT's question—

In the matter of bail a brown envelope containing 300 smackers was not acceptable to the Court.

Read Trevor's article in Rip 127—

11 & 12 Vict. c. 42, s.23, provides:

‘The usual number of sureties is two; but sometimes only one is required, and sometimes three or more.’

Married women, infants or prisoners in custody, or persons having previously been convicted of infamous crimes, were ineligible as sureties. Persons standing surety had to be upright members of the community who could demonstrate upon oath before a Magistrate or Judge that, in the event of their bailee absconding (they were wholly responsible for his appearance at court), the value of their property, estates or business holdings was sufficient to cover the amount pledged. In the matter of default, payment was ‘to be made and levied of their several goods and chattels, lands and tenements respectively.' Standing surety could not be a cash transaction.

Regards,

Simon

I have a receipt somewhere for a cash bail, I was given it years ago I'll have to find it and try to post a copy.