Is this new Tumblety info?

[David Orsam]

In this instance "respite" signifies a delay, forbearance or continuation of time.

In other words Tumblety's bail was deemed good until the December sessions.

Thanks for that Simon, which is what I thought. So what has happened on 20 November is that Mr Bodkin, on behalf of Tumblety, has applied for a postponement of the trial (for whatever reason) to the next Session of the Old Bailey, with Tumblety's recognizances respited. Mr Muir for the prosecution has either agreed or disagreed (I would guess agreed) but the Recorder has certainly agreed, hence the postponement of the trial - and Tumblety is further remanded on bail to 10 December (when he fails to show).

[Trevor Marriott]

Thanks for that Simon, which is what I thought. So what has happened on 20 November is that Mr Bodkin, on behalf of Tumblety, has applied for a postponement of the trial (for whatever reason) to the next Session of the Old Bailey, with Tumblety's recognizances respited. Mr Muir for the prosecution has either agreed or disagreed (I would guess agreed) but the Recorder has certainly agreed, hence the postponement of the trial - and Tumblety is further remanded on bail to 10 December (when he fails to show).

If that be the case, then Tumblety didnt show up on that November date otherwise if the application to adjourn had been made on his behalf then he could have been remanded in custody.

Now its a pity we can only speculate what the grounds for the application to postpone were.

I can only speculate that his defense counsel was able to convince the court that it perhaps had not been possible to contact and notify Tumblety of the specific trial date. So the court granted him some leaway in that respect, or that he was ill and could not attend

However the court still had the power to rescind his bail there and then, and issue an arrest warrant

respite definition in criminal law
"A suspension of a sentence, which is to be executed at a future time"

By that it probably means the holding back of the arrest warrant so if the case was taken out of the November sessions and put in the December sessions then his counsel did a good job.

"The trial may, however be postponed to the next assizes or sessions at the instance of the prosecutor or defendant, on showing to the court a sufficient cause for delay, such as the sudden illness of the prisoner, or the unavoidable absence or illness of a necessary and material witness, the existence of prejudice in the jury, and the like."

"Where the application is made by the defendant, he will be remanded and detained in custody until the next assizes or sessions; but where the application is made by the prosecutor, it is in the direction of the court either to detain the defendant in custody or admit him to bail, or to discharge him on his own recognizance’s."

[David Orsam]

If that be the case, then Tumblety didnt show up on that November date otherwise if the application to adjourn had been made on his behalf then he could have been remanded in custody.

Now its a pity we can only speculate what the grounds for the application to postpone were.

I can only speculate that his defense counsel was able to convince the court that it perhaps had not been possible to contact and notify Tumblety of the specific trial date. So the court granted him some leaway in that respect, or that he was ill and could not attend

However the court still had the power to rescind his bail there and then, and issue an arrest warrant

respite definition in criminal law
"A suspension of a sentence, which is to be executed at a future time"
By that it probably means the holding back of the arrest warrant so if the case was taken out of the November sessions and put in the December sessions then his counsel did a good job.

"The trial may, however be postponed to the next assizes or sessions at the instance of the prosecutor or defendant, on showing to the court a sufficient cause for delay, such as the sudden illness of the prisoner, or the unavoidable absence or illness of a necessary and material witness, the existence of prejudice in the jury, and the like."

"Where the application is made by the defendant, he will be remanded and detained in custody until the next assizes or sessions; but where the application is made by the prosecutor, it is in the direction of the court either to detain the defendant in custody or admit him to bail, or to discharge him on his own recognizance’s."

Trevor, I think you are mistaken here because you are, I believe, quoting from Archbold in respect of indictments for felonies.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor, I think you are mistaken here because you are, I believe, quoting from Archbold in respect of indictments for felonies.

I think we are getting away from the main issue which is :

Did Tumblelty abscond after he was granted bail on Nov 16th, and before his trial date starting on Nov 20? Or after Nov 20th when details of an unknown application to postpone the trial was put before the court and the reasons for that postponement are also unknown.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[David Orsam]

I think we are getting away from the main issue which is :

Did Tumblelty abscond after he was granted bail on Nov 16th, and before his trial date starting on Nov 20? Or after Nov 20th when details of an unknown application to postpone the trial was put before the court and the reasons for that postponement are also unknown.

For me the answer is obvious - it is after the 20 Nov and I say that because, even if the basis of the application was that he was too ill to attend on the 20th, he must have been in London in order to have given instructions to his lawyers to make the application.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Here's Tumblety in the November 1888 Old Bailey Calendar.



If he had been a no-show on 20th November [eg, he was legging it to France at the time] "Recognizances of Defendant Estreated" would have appeared on the right hand page rather than "Remanded Until Next Session."

So the answer is that he absconded later that day or shortly after 20th November.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

Just to add one thing for completeness. I say above that my guess is that the prosecution agreed with the application but that was simply me playing the odds on the basis that the Recorder accepted it, which he was more likely to do if the prosecution agreed, or at least did not object. However, note the wording of the following entry (also from CRIM 6/17) relating to an application on 19 November 1888 in respect of one marvellously named Saint Bernard Wilson, who had been committed to trial for libel:

"Reg
v
Saint Bernard Wilson

Upon application of Mr Besley for defence assented to by Mr Geoghegan for prosecution the trial is postponed to next session it being stated that the plea of justification would be withdrawn & a noble prosequi applied for."

This expressly states that the prosecution assented to the application which does not appear in the Tumblety entry. So it is of course possible that Mr Muir, for the prosecution, objected to Mr Bodkin's application but the Recorder nevertheless agreed to it.

[David Orsam]

Hi All,

Here's Tumblety in the November 1888 Old Bailey Calendar.

[ATTACH]16606[/ATTACH]

If he had been a no-show on 20th November [eg, he was legging it to France at the time] "Recognizances of Defendant Estreated" would have appeared on the right hand page rather than "Remanded Until Next Session."

So the answer is that he absconded later that day or shortly after 20th November.

Regards,

Simon

Agreed - my only caveat would be that if the application was that he was too ill to be tried (Tumblety having cunningly fooled a respectable doctor to buy time to prepare for his escape) he would presumably not have been required to present himself in court, on the basis of assurances given by his lawyers that they had seen him earlier that morning or the day before.

[Trevor Marriott]

For me the answer is obvious - it is after the 20 Nov and I say that because, even if the basis of the application was that he was too ill to attend on the 20th, he must have been in London in order to have given instructions to his lawyers to make the application.

Not necessary they might have been trying to buy time so he could perhaps be found.

The system is that all cases for the November sessions would be placed on a warned list, and as previously stated in order of severity. However most persons on that list would not have been given a specific trial date, because each day of the sessions cases may have folded early or gone on longer.

Therefore defendants may not have known their trial was due to take place until perhaps close of play the day before, when the next days list was drawn up.. It would therefore be the responsibility of the defense to notify their clients that their trial was the next day.

If this happened and he could not be found because he had already absconded the defense would not perhaps know that, and so make an application to ask for more time to establish his whereabouts.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

Are you suggesting the lawyers colluded in getting Tumblety out of the country?

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

If this happened and he could not be found because he had already absconded the defense would not perhaps know that, and so make an application to ask for more time to establish his whereabouts.

I think you may be clutching at straws because I don't think this could have been properly described as an "application" which, I believe, would have had to have been made on client instructions. The idea that in such circumstances, with the whereabouts of the accused being unknown, the Recorder would simply have remanded Tumblety on continued bail to 10 December is, surely, inconceivable.

[Trevor Marriott]

Agreed - my only caveat would be that if the application was that he was too ill to be tried (Tumblety having cunningly fooled a respectable doctor to buy time to prepare for his escape) he would presumably not have been required to present himself in court, on the basis of assurances given by his lawyers that they had seen him earlier that morning or the day before.

The other thing to consider is that Tumblety once bailed after his committal had made up his mind not to stand trial. So if Nov 20th was his trial date he certainly would not have presented himself to the court for obvious reasons.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[David Orsam]

Are you suggesting the lawyers colluded in getting Tumblety out of the country?

Absolutely not! I'm suggesting Tumblety might have fooled his lawyers by faking illness, with the assistance of a gullible doctor.

[Trevor Marriott]

I think you may be clutching at straws because I don't think this could have been properly described as an "application" which, I believe, would have had to have been made on client instructions. The idea that in such circumstances, with the whereabouts of the accused being unknown, the Recorder would simply have remanded Tumblety on continued bail to 10 December is, surely, inconceivable.

It doesnt work like that in practice

Whats wrong with making an application by telling the judge due to the lateness of being told the trial date he had not been found. If this be the case then the judge gave them the benefit of the doubt having regards to the fact that sureties were in place and it might have been expected that they might have wanted his appearance to avoid being estreated

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

Don't sound so shocked. Collusion is exactly what happened.

It is explained in my forthcoming book.

Regards,

Simon