Was Tumblety in Jail during the Kelly Murder?

[Bridewell]

If he had have been bailed before there would have been no need to remand him from 14th-16th bail would have been extended.

The extension of bail is not automatic. Circumstances can (and do) change. As you posted yourself:

What you seem to not be able to comprehend is that bail was not automatic and each case before a magistrate was different and the question of bail was judge on its merits. Before granting any bail a specific criteria had to be satisfied.

Post committal there is a big change because a magistrate has decided that there is a case to answer before the higher court. It could be argued that it is at that point - when he realises the strength of the case against him - that the risk of absconding increases significantly. I'm not going to argue that Tumblety was on bail prior to committal, only that the certainty of his having been in custody cannot be supported evidentially.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Trevor Marriott]

So you keep saying, but the fact remains that it happened in Ginger's case, so what you are claiming is incorrect.

One obvious possibility is that the amount of bail was increased at committal, and that this is what caused the delay.

Chris

Looking at it your way if the magistrate as you and others suggest on Nov 7th had considered giving Tumblety bail. He without a doubt would have insisted on a recognizance from Tumblety and sureties and the bail would have been a high amount as we know it was at a later stage.

Even if Tumblety had nominated surerites and they had come forward on that day and I think that is highly unlikely as he would not have had the time to organise that. Then they would have to have been investigated to be deemed suitable to stand as sureties. It is recorded that this process in some cases took up to 48 hours to complete.

If that be the case and I dont think it ever was then Tumblety would have still been in custody at the time of the Kelly murder in any event.

Playing devils advocate here if this did happen then Tumblety would not have been bailed from the police court he would have been bailed by a visiting magistrate at The Clerkenwell House of Detention. Therefore there would be no entry shown on the court calendar as to where, when or how he was bailed.

Now much has been lamented about Henry Ginger and the fact he was also bailed before his committal and it has been highlighted that against his name on the calender there is no record of where or how he got bail.

The answer I beleive is quite simple. Ginger was arrested for misdemeanor offences of dishonesty, and like Tumblety these were only triable at the higher court. He was arrested on Sept 14th but not committed until November 15th and bailed with recognizances sometime between then.

Obvioulsy the court papers on his case are not available, however it would not surprise me to find that when he was initially put before the court following his arrest he was told he could have bail pending him being able to come up with his own suitable and acceptabe recognizance with perahps sureties.

Gingers occupation was shown as a traveller so on appearance he may not have been a wealthy man or had ready access to person or persons who were in a financial position to readily come forward and stand surety for him. So therefore he would have remained in custody until such time as he was able to.

As likely as not the same scenario could have occured with him as with Tumblety that being he at some point came up with the recognizance and sureties and was granted bail whilst on remand at The Clerkenwell House of Detention by a visiting magistrate. This would also account for there being no entry in the court calendar stating where, when, or how he had been bailed.

[Trevor Marriott]

The extension of bail is not automatic. Circumstances can (and do) change. As you posted yourself:


Post committal there is a big change because a magistrate has decided that there is a case to answer before the higher court. It could be argued that it is at that point - when he realises the strength of the case against him - that the risk of absconding increases significantly. I'm not going to argue that Tumblety was on bail prior to committal, only that the certainty of his having been in custody cannot be supported evidentially.

Regards, Bridewell.

No one is suggesting that it can be proved evidentially that he was in custody. It is a case of highlighting the balance of probabilty based on what is now known against what was orginally known and accepted.

Now you know as well as I do about the bail criteria, that risk of absconding is no greater after committal than it is before. I think Tumblety would have known the strength of evidence against him as soon as he was charged. Three seperate offences over a four month period wih specific dates. He would have (pardon the pun) Tumbled the fact that he had been under surveilance. The evidence would be brief but to the point "Tumbley had sex with me "

I ask the question yet again if Tumbley was relased on bail on Nov 7th then why didnt he abscond then, why wait knowing that following his committal he may have been remanded in custody and ultimately if he went to trial on conviction he would be facing a lengthy sentence

[Trevor Marriott]

A surety doesn't have to attend in answer to bail. He or she simply vouches that the defendant will do so (when the surety is taken).

Regards, Bridewell.

Thank you for the above however I was fully aware of those facts.

You may be interested to peruse the following paragraphs regarding victorain practice and procedures.

"If the surety attends the court at the given date and time without the principal the court may enquire into any circumstances which may allow them to make an instant decision on the culpability of the surety with regards to forfeiture in total, or in part. It will be for the surety to prove to the court that all reasonable steps were taken by him to secure the attendance of the principal at court on the given date and time."

"Sureties failing to produce principals may be summoned to show good cause as why the recognizance should not be forfeited, and why the sum due under the recognizance should not be paid in full.

[Jenni Shelden]

of course though when you say the balance of probability, you mean the lesser degree of probability as in a civil case, rather than beyond reasonable doubt ??

sorry couldnt resist, i thought the mood needed lightening

[Trevor Marriott]

of course though when you say the balance of probability, you mean the lesser degree of probability as in a civil case, rather than beyond reasonable doubt ??

sorry couldnt resist, i thought the mood needed lightening

Hi Jenni

My mood is very light even have a spring in my step. I have had the best couple of days on here since I first joined. Although I think others may not feel as enlightened. In fact one hasnt been seen or heard of today I just hope he hasnt thrown himself off a bridge

[Jenni Shelden]

In all seriousness, i really enjoyed your article.
I thought this issue of the Rip was the best of the year.

All the articles were thought provoking and yours included made me reconsider certain aspects of the case that I hadnt really thought about for years.

This is good thing!

Jenni

[Beowulf]

Hi Jenni

My mood is very light even have a spring in my step. I have had the best couple of days on here since I first joined. Although I think others may not feel as enlightened. In fact one hasnt been seen or heard of today I just hope he hasnt thrown himself off a bridge

It is a great article. Although many have debated it the contribution is solid. Can't take that away from you.

Tumblety has tumbled off the Ripper rolls.

[Jonathan H]

To Beowulf

That's an opinion, not a fact, and arguably not a strong one.

[mklhawley]

It is a great article. Although many have debated it the contribution is solid. Can't take that away from you.

Tumblety has tumbled off the Ripper rolls.

I've been gone all day and didn't get a chance to participate in what is a very interesting series of posts. Beowulf, you certainly do have a right to your opinion, but that's all it is since it's based upon nothing.

For the last year, we've been hearing Simon and Trevor hint that there was clear evidence that Tumblety was in jail during the Kelly murder, which will be doubted by none. Some on the sidelines claimed that Trevor's irrefutable proof is an impossibility, because of Anderson's post-Kelly murder actions involving Tumblety as a Ripper suspect, Inspector Andrews' mission in Canada, and Littlechilds comments. We then find out that Trevor's evidence is not irrefutable proof, but merely an argument paper shown not to exclude the possibility of Tumblety being free during the Kelly murder. Those on the sidelines seemed to have gotten it right.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Trevor Marriott]

It is a great article. Although many have debated it the contribution is solid. Can't take that away from you.

Tumblety has tumbled off the Ripper rolls.

Thank you for you kind comments I totally agree,

[Trevor Marriott]

In all seriousness, i really enjoyed your article.
I thought this issue of the Rip was the best of the year.

All the articles were thought provoking and yours included made me reconsider certain aspects of the case that I hadnt really thought about for years.

This is good thing!

Jenni

Thank you for your kind comments and I look froward to chatting with you at York.

Trevor

[PaulB]

Hello Paul,

Ahh, but then 'newspapers are notoriously unreliable.'

best wishes

Phil

But nevertheless one of the main sources we possess. An prophetic, too, don't you think?

[m_w_r]

Do you not think that if tumble ty was bailed on 7th the court would have insisted on sure ties, because in all the other cases quoted sure ties were required.
So if he had been bailed it was a requisite that his sureties were required to attend also to answer bail.There would have been no need to bang him up as u suggest to find sureties when he would have already had them.

Hi Trevor,

1) How do we know that Tumbelty was not released on his own recognisances on 7 November 1888?

2) How do we know that, if Tumblety was released on surety on 7 November 1888, the person or persons providing sureties on that occasion remained willing to do so on 14 November 1888?

Regards,

Mark

[Chris]

Thanks to Trevor Marriott for his constructive response to my post above.

There are clearly some uncertainties about what bail arrangements would have been recorded in the calendar. Maybe some light could be shed on that by looking at some of the other entries in the calendar, in conjunction with newspaper reports.

2) How do we know that, if Tumblety was released on surety on 7 November 1888, the person or persons providing sureties on that occasion remained willing to do so on 14 November 1888?

In relation to this question, I do think we need to consider the possibility that the amount of bail set at committal might have been larger than that set earlier.

In the case of Hamilton de Tatham, referred to by Joe Chetcuti above, "Bail to the total amount of £400" was accepted initially (on 22 April 1891) but at committal it was to be "two sureties of £250 each, and the defendant's own recognizance in £500" (on 29 April 1891):

http://www.saxonlodge.net/getperson.php?personID=I0846&tree=Tatham