Is this new Tumblety info?

[David Orsam]

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.

Mr Bodkin couldn't make any application on his own accord and it would have been improper for him to have done so. He could only act on instructions. These would have come from his instructing solicitors but they couldn't have given instructions to Counsel if they didn't know where their client was. The only proper course for Mr Bodkin to have adopted would have been for him to tell the judge that he was without instructions. He could not "apply" for anything.

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

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

It is explained in my forthcoming book.

Well, sure, there are plenty of dishonest solicitors around but you'll have to work very hard to convince me that Archibald Bodkin was part of this conspiracy.

Didn't know you had a book coming out Simon and very much look forward to reading it.

[Trevor Marriott]

Mr Bodkin couldn't make any application on his own accord and it would have been improper for him to have done so. He could only act on instructions. These would have come from his instructing solicitors but they couldn't have given instructions to Counsel if they didn't know where their client was. The only proper course for Mr Bodkin to have adopted would have been for him to tell the judge that he was without instructions. He could not "apply" for anything.

Of course he could don't be so naive !

[GUT]

Well, sure, there are plenty of dishonest solicitors around but you'll have to work very hard to convince me that Archibald Bodkin was part of this conspiracy.

Didn't know you had a book coming out Simon and very much look forward to reading it.

I've seen lawyers do some pretty unethical things, t seems to have been a lot less common in 1880s, and Bodkin was pretty highly regarded for his integrity so much so indeed I doubt that he would act without instructions.

[David Orsam]

Of course he could don't be so naive !

It's not a question of naivety Trevor, it's a golden rule at the bar that a barrister cannot do anything in court without instructions. He couldn't possibly have told the Recorder on the one hand that he didn't know where his client was and then, on the other hand, made an application on his client's behalf for a postponement, self-evidently without instructions.

[Mayerling]

Exactly, so I wonder what has happened to them! From memory, the Muirs might have had a daughter but I seem to recall that I couldn't locate anyone to even write to in order to ask about their papers, but perhaps someone else might have more joy. It would be nice if they were in a library somewhere.

Hi David,

You want to know what I consider really, really irritating about missing papers?

When he died around 1921, Henry Matthews finally was able to have an entry in the original Dictionary of National Biography. In the entry's bibliography, it mentions his collection of personal papers. I take it, it would include papers dealing with his years as Home Secretary, and what he learned and was involved in in the autumn of 1888! Yet I have never seen any other mention of this. Were they preserved or destroyed? Do they still exist? Who knows?

Jeff

[Mayerling]

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.

The "Mr. Geoghegan" mentioned is most likely Mr. Gerald Geoghegan, the rising young criminal law barrister - here, oddly enough, the prosecutor and not the defender. Gerald Geoghegan was one of Israel Lipski's two counsel (the junior there), and would represent Frederick Deeming (possibly assisted by the young Edward Marshall-Hall, though I doubt it) at Deeming's hearing for a plea for a new trial at the Privy Council in May 1892 (which was denied). Geoghegan went on to defend Dr. Thomas Neill Cream at his trial later in 1892. Geoghegan died of a medicinal drug overdose in 1902 - possibly an intentional act.

Jeff

[Mayerling]

Hi David,

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

It is explained in my forthcoming book.

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon,

Your book sounds very promising. I hope to see it. By any chance have you been able to track down the four gentlemen (John Doughty, Arthur Brice, Albert Fisher, and James Crowley) with whom Doc Tumblety supposedly had illegal relations with?

Jeff

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jeff,

Thanks.

Although I have my suspicions about the four men, they remain a work in progress

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

You want to know what I consider really, really irritating about missing papers?

When he died around 1921, Henry Matthews finally was able to have an entry in the original Dictionary of National Biography. In the entry's bibliography, it mentions his collection of personal papers. I take it, it would include papers dealing with his years as Home Secretary, and what he learned and was involved in in the autumn of 1888! Yet I have never seen any other mention of this. Were they preserved or destroyed? Do they still exist? Who knows?

I couldn't agree more - there should be much more information available regarding what has happened to papers of historical importance. It's very frustrating not to know if documents which have existed still exist or not.

[David Orsam]

The "Mr. Geoghegan" mentioned is most likely Mr. Gerald Geoghegan, the rising young criminal law barrister - here, oddly enough, the prosecutor and not the defender.

That is quite sharp-eyed of you because Mr Besley appears to have been a prosecutor mainly and I was wondering if they are the right way round. There has been some crossing out on the original and it's easier for me to show you the image that try to explain what the writing shows:

[Robert]

David, re trying to trace possible surviving papers of Richard David Muir : as far as I can tell, he had two children, three grandchildren, and four great-grandchildren, at which point I stopped. It might be possible to trace them, but the surnames aren't easy.

[PaulB]

Hi David,

You want to know what I consider really, really irritating about missing papers?

When he died around 1921, Henry Matthews finally was able to have an entry in the original Dictionary of National Biography. In the entry's bibliography, it mentions his collection of personal papers. I take it, it would include papers dealing with his years as Home Secretary, and what he learned and was involved in in the autumn of 1888! Yet I have never seen any other mention of this. Were they preserved or destroyed? Do they still exist? Who knows?

Jeff

The Bodleian in Oxford has some of Matthews papers in their Sandars collection.

[David Orsam]

David, re trying to trace possible surviving papers of Richard David Muir : as far as I can tell, he had two children, three grandchildren, and four great-grandchildren, at which point I stopped. It might be possible to trace them, but the surnames aren't easy.

Thanks Robert, I think that's pretty much where I got to about five years ago but I never contacted anyone because the chances of success seemed so remote. However, perhaps some of the Tumblety researchers might be more determined and optimistic than I was and I will leave it to them if they think it's worthwhile locating Muir's papers (and I will be happy to piggy back off that in the event that there are papers re. the prosecution of Marie Wheatley!).

[Robert]

OK David I will have a go. Either the family still retain the papers (or 'playing cards' or whatever) or they were given to a repository or they were simply lost/thrown away. I hope it's not the latter.