Is this new Tumblety info?

[David Orsam]

Forgive me, since reading the Evans & Gainey book many years ago, I haven't followed Tumblety developments at all, apart from having read the recent threads in this forum, so I don't know if what I have discovered today is new information or already known about, but I couldn't find anything through a Google search so I'll set out what I have - with my best attempt at transcribing the handwritten text - at the risk of it being old hat.

The below two entries are from CRIM 6/17 at the National Archives which is a Central Criminal Court Book covering the period 1 April 1887 to 31 March 1891.

FIRST ENTRY

"Tuesday morning 20th November 1888 Before Sir Thos. Chambers 2 C Recorder and Alderman Tyler.

Regina
v
Francis Tumblety

Committed for offences under Criminal Law Amendment Act
Upon application of Mr Bodkin for defence & after hearing Mr Muir for prosecution the case is adjourned till next Session all recognizances being respited."

[The letter "M." is written in pencil next to Tumblety's name]

SECOND ENTRY (under entries for 10 December 1888)

"Estreat the Recoyce of Francis Tumblety and his bail for non appearance here to answer an indictment for misdemeanour

Thomas Chambers."

[Batman]

edit: gave wrong date.

I would say there is a good chance this will be new to many people here.

What is a recoyce?

It appears the bail money ends up with the state because by the 10th of December he appears a non-show.

[David Orsam]

I would say there is a good chance this will be new to many people here.

What is a recoyce?

It appears the bail money ends up with the state because by the 10th of November he appears a non-show.

Meaning he wasn't in prison on the 9th November the day of MJKs murder.

New information. I think good chance as the argument from the Tumblety doubters is that he was detained between 7 and 14 November 1888.

The evidence to the contrary seemed to indicate this was not true so your find bolsters that Tumblety was free as many advocates believe.

It would be great if I had found something so conclusive but the date I think you are referring to is the 10th December.

If this is new, then I would have thought that the key piece of info here is that Tumblety's solicitors had instructed Archibald Bodkin to represent him. But I'll leave it to the Tumblety experts to analyse.

I assume that "Estreat the Recoyce" is somehow short for Estreat the Recognizance (it might be "Recogce" but it definitely appears to be a "y").

[Batman]

Ah your right. I thought they back dated something. My bad.

Thanks for the explaination on that word.

[Mayerling]

It would be great if I had found something so conclusive but the date I think you are referring to is the 10th December.

If this is new, then I would have thought that the key piece of info here is that Tumblety's solicitors had instructed Archibald Bodkin to represent him. But I'll leave it to the Tumblety experts to analyse.

I assume that "Estreat the Recoyce" is somehow short for Estreat the Recognizance (it might be "Recogce" but it definitely appears to be a "y").

Not only that the future Sir Archibald Bodkin is his lawyer, but the prosecutor is the future Sir Richard Muir (who would prosecute Crippen and Stinie Morrison among other). Muir, by the way, was not only a well prepared prosecutor (his notes for the questioning of witnesses in the Crippen case survive), but he was a "no prisoners" type of barrister - he went for the jugular. If his reputation in 1888 was as high as in 1910 then Tumblety may have been informed of this, and it may have helped convince him to leave and not face Muir.

Jeff

[David Orsam]

his notes for the questioning of witnesses in the Crippen case survive.

Now, it's interesting that you say this Jeff - and I've pondering on this issue today. Do you know where those notes are?

Muir's biography by Sidney Felstead "Famous Criminals and Their Trials" (first published in 1926) is said to contain information "compiled from the papers of Sir Richard Muir". I was keenly interested in the whereabouts of these papers while researching my first book about the murder of Annie Wootten in 1915, for Muir was the prosecuting counsel in the trial of Marie Wheatley who was accused of the crime. The press reports of the trial were not very detailed and I would loved to have seen Muir's equivalent preparatory notes as for the Crippen case (which Felstead reproduces in his book). However, I was never able to establish where Muir's papers actually are or if they have survived to the present day. I did the obvious searches and even got hold of a copy of Muir's will but could never get to the bottom of it, although I'm sure I did not exhaust every avenue - I just didn't know who to contact. My point is that they might contain his prep notes for his expected cross-examination of Tumblety.

Incidentally, both Muir and Bodkin were fairly junior barristers at this time, having been called to the bar in 1884 and 1885 respectively. According to Felstead, it was "from thence [1893] onwards that he [Muir] began to make a distinct mark at the bar".

[Trevor Marriott]

Forgive me, since reading the Evans & Gainey book many years ago, I haven't followed Tumblety developments at all, apart from having read the recent threads in this forum, so I don't know if what I have discovered today is new information or already known about, but I couldn't find anything through a Google search so I'll set out what I have - with my best attempt at transcribing the handwritten text - at the risk of it being old hat.

The below two entries are from CRIM 6/17 at the National Archives which is a Central Criminal Court Book covering the period 1 April 1887 to 31 March 1891.

FIRST ENTRY

"Tuesday morning 20th November 1888 Before Sir Thos. Chambers 2 C Recorder and Alderman Tyler.

Regina
v
Francis Tumblety

Committed for offences under Criminal Law Amendment Act
Upon application of Mr Bodkin for defence & after hearing Mr Muir for prosecution the case is adjourned till next Session all recognizances being respited."

[The letter "M." is written in pencil next to Tumblety's name]

SECOND ENTRY (under entries for 10 December 1888)

"Estreat the Recoyce of Francis Tumblety and his bail for non appearance here to answer an indictment for misdemeanour

Thomas Chambers."

Just some more important information for the benefit of those remaining naysayers who suggest Tumblety was out on bail the night MJK was murdered

In Summary Jurisdiction Procedure, by Cecil George Douglas [1907], which discusses the 1848 to 1899 summary jurisdiction acts regulating the duties of justices of the peace, the author appends a note regarding 11 & 12 Vict. c. 42, s.21 and the eligibility of bail in cases of misdemeanor.

“Bail Before or After Committal — A distinction appears to be drawn as to the rights of an accused person to bail in cases of misdemeanor before and after committal for trial. The generally received impression appears to be that the right of bail in misdemeanor does not arise until committal for trial.”

It therefore appears that Tumblety was not eligible for bail until after his Wednesday 14th November committal for trial. Only then would Magistrate J.L. Hannay have agreed to bail, but on the understanding that suitable sureties were found. These were found between the 14th-16th and therfore bail was granted.

The next important question is did Tumblety ever physically appear at The Old Bailey?

It should be noted that the Old Bailey November Sessions opened on Monday 19th November, closed on Friday 23rd November, So the committal papers would have had to have reached the court before Monday 19th. and, by Saturday 24th November, Tumblety had reached Le Havre and was aboard the transatlantic liner La Bretagne, bound for New York.

Time was short, but luck may have been on Tumblety's side. On receipt of all committal papers the Central Criminal court would have prepared them in order of severity. Murders, and robberies first to be tried. Misdemeanors, second. All of the cases due to be heard at those sessions would first be put before a Grand Jury which sat on the opening morning of the sessions.

It was their role to examine each case to ensure there was sufficient evidence to put before the jury. If so, this was known as a "True Bill”. Cases they felt did not meet the necessary criteria would be thrown out, marked as “Not Found”, and the prisoner released.

Tumblety's indictment papers were marked "True Bill" and signed by William Sugg, the Grand Jury Foreman, after which they would have been handed to the court, in readiness for Tumblety's trial before the jury.

One clue we have to Tumblety's possible appearance at the November Sessions is the November 1888 Old Bailey Calendar. This shows that his case was "Remanded until next Session" [commencing 10th December]. How could this postponement have come about?

The following may give us a clue

"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."

Did Tumblety or his defense counsel apply to have the trial adjourned? It clearly states that

"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."

If Tumblety did ever physically appear at the Old Bailey, then, as he was able to flee abroad it must be concluded that, for as yet unknown reasons, it was the Crown [the prosecution] who applied to postpone Tumblety's trial.

Clearly he did not because the interpretation of what you have said is that he did not appear on Nov 20th when his case was called. His bail was cancelled and the case taken out to be heard at the next sessions starting Dec 10th.

If he had have been found in the interim period of time he would have been remnaded in custody until Dec 10. On that day his sureties were ordered to pay the amount they had promised when he was originally bailed

[David Orsam]

If Tumblety did ever physically appear at the Old Bailey, then, as he was able to flee abroad it must be concluded that, for as yet unknown reasons, it was the Crown [the prosecution] who applied to postpone Tumblety's trial.

Is that right though Trevor because the document clearly states that it was the defence making an application, i.e. "Upon application of Mr Bodkin for defence...". What is the implication of that?

[David Orsam]

the interpretation of what you have said is that he did not appear on Nov 20th when his case was called. His bail was cancelled and the case taken out to be heard at the next sessions starting Dec 10th.

Is that also right, I mean about his about bail being cancelled? Doesn't the fact that his recognizances were respited mean that his bail was extended? Or have I misunderstood?

[Trevor Marriott]

Is that right though Trevor because the document clearly states that it was the defence making an application, i.e. "Upon application of Mr Bodkin for defence...". What is the implication of that?

Well if tumblety had gone AWOL the defence barrister would have to had given the court some explanation for his none appearance it would have been a matter for the court to decide what course of action they wanted to take.
They put the case back till December

It was general practice that sureties had to also attend at the same time it looks as if the sureties were removed but not estreated until dec 10 when it became clear to the court that he had absconded

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

If Tumblety had not appeared when his case was called on 20th November, his breach of bail [granted on 16th November] would have appeared in the November 1888 Court Calendar.

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.

Regards,

Simon

[Mayerling]

Now, it's interesting that you say this Jeff - and I've pondering on this issue today. Do you know where those notes are?

Muir's biography by Sidney Felstead "Famous Criminals and Their Trials" (first published in 1926) is said to contain information "compiled from the papers of Sir Richard Muir". I was keenly interested in the whereabouts of these papers while researching my first book about the murder of Annie Wootten in 1915, for Muir was the prosecuting counsel in the trial of Marie Wheatley who was accused of the crime. The press reports of the trial were not very detailed and I would loved to have seen Muir's equivalent preparatory notes as for the Crippen case (which Felstead reproduces in his book). However, I was never able to establish where Muir's papers actually are or if they have survived to the present day. I did the obvious searches and even got hold of a copy of Muir's will but could never get to the bottom of it, although I'm sure I did not exhaust every avenue - I just didn't know who to contact. My point is that they might contain his prep notes for his expected cross-examination of Tumblety.

Incidentally, both Muir and Bodkin were fairly junior barristers at this time, having been called to the bar in 1884 and 1885 respectively. According to Felstead, it was "from thence [1893] onwards that he [Muir] began to make a distinct mark at the bar".

Hi Dave,

I wish I could announce some astounding discovery here, but I can't.

My source is "The Crippen File" edited by Jonathan Goodman (London & New York: Allison & Busby, Ltd., 1985) p. 59 to 64. There is (on the verso of the title page in my paperback edition) a note on the sources for the material. I am copying it as it appears, but the proofreading was at fault and gives the wrong pages (what I gave is the correct ones):

"66: The text is an extract from "Sir Richard Muir: the Memoir of a Public Prosecutor", written by S. T. Feldstead, and edited by Lady Muir, The Bodley Head, London, 1927."

Apparently Jonathan got the material from the same source as you did. The papers must have been in Lady Muir's hands. I don't think they had surviving children.

Jeff

[Chris]

In Summary Jurisdiction Procedure, by Cecil George Douglas [1907], which discusses the 1848 to 1899 summary jurisdiction acts regulating the duties of justices of the peace, the author appends a note regarding 11 & 12 Vict. c. 42, s.21 and the eligibility of bail in cases of misdemeanor.

“Bail Before or After Committal — A distinction appears to be drawn as to the rights of an accused person to bail in cases of misdemeanor before and after committal for trial. The generally received impression appears to be that the right of bail in misdemeanor does not arise until committal for trial.”

It therefore appears that Tumblety was not eligible for bail until after his Wednesday 14th November committal for trial.

The problem is that we know from other cases that bail could be given for these offences before committal, that the amount of bail could be increased at committal (which of course could cause a delay in finding sureties) and that the bail arrangements were not always recorded in the calendar. One such example, the case of Hamilton de Tatham, is described by Joe Chetcuti in the current Ripperologist (and was discussed on this thread in 2012).

[Trevor Marriott]

The problem is that we know from other cases that bail could be given for these offences before committal, that the amount of bail could be increased at committal (which of course could cause a delay in finding sureties) and that the bail arrangements were not always recorded in the calendar. One such example, the case of Hamilton de Tatham, is described by Joe Chetcuti in the current Ripperologist (and was discussed on this thread in 2012).

Yes you are right, but each case which warranted the consideration of bail was judged on its merits. As has been said before Tumbelty would have been looked upon as a high risk for absconding, as against a UK citizen who had a fixed address and perhaps family connections. So that is why they wanted sureties, and that it why it took time for him to come up with those sureties. In the mean time he would have been locked up.

The due process still works the same today although the use of sureties is not so widely used

[David Orsam]

The papers must have been in Lady Muir's hands.

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.