Commendations - Challenge!

[Robert]

Very interesting stuff, David.

There is a Frank Huzzey police constable in 1891, who was living Grange Rd police station at the time of his marriage in 1889, which ties in with M division. Full name Francis Charles Huzzey.

[David Orsam]

Thanks Robert. I think we are going to struggle with individual commendations, such as for someone like Huzzey, because even if we find an arrest he made in the latter part of 1888 we won't know for sure if it's the one he got the commendation for. We might have more luck where two or more are handed out in respect of the same date and division, such as Reid and Dolden, because there is an extremely high probability of being right if we can link them to a single arrest. Also better when an inspector or CID is involved because it was probably a more important crime. So the ones with Swords, Hanchet and Curson in M Division, Peddar and Temblett in E Division and Brockwell and Hearn in N Division might give us more luck.

Swords, incidentally, was Inspector William Swords.

[David Orsam]

I trust that the discovery I made about Bartlett's arrest did not get lost in all the other postings in this thread. The fact is that we now know that the information in the Old Bailey Calendar that Tumblety was received into custody on 7 November 1888 does not necessarily mean that he was arrested on that date.

Let's look at what happened with George Bartlett in chronological form:

12 November - Arrested (or at least taken to a police station) on suspicion of being involved in the Whitechapel murders.

13 November - Charged at Worship Street with unlawful possession but then "discharged" but then "given back into custody to be charged...with sacrilege."

14 November - Charged at Bow Street with sacrilege and committed to trial at the Old Bailey.

The Old Bailey Calendar does not acknowledge that anything at all happened to Bartlett prior to 14 November because it simply records him being received into custody AND being committed to trial on 14 November.

Food for thought?

[Robert]

Hi David

Well, either some of the info online is unreliable, or there is some kind of technical, specialised meaning of which we are unaware.

I did a test case and chose at random the case of Henry Hicks, Charles Harrison and George Mack, fraud, 27th Feb 1888.

http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?id=t18880227-351-offence-1&div=t18880227-351#highlight

It seems from the police witness that they were taken into custody two days before the date given in the court calendar.

What's more, the trial is on the 27th according to one source, and the 29th according to the other!

[David Orsam]

I've taken a look at this Robert and my thoughts are below.

Dealing with the date of the trial first. It seems to me that the date stated on the Old Bailey website is always the first day of the session (or the day of the true bill) which in this case was 27 February. The trial was on 29 February.

As for the date of arrest, it is clear from the minutes of the proceedings that Harrison was arrested on 14 January. It is not clear when Hicks was arrested but from the Daily News (of 17 January), Mack was arrested on 16 January and brought straight to Worship Street Police Court to appear with the other two men (before Mr Hannay).

According to the Old Bailey Calendar, all three men were "received into custody" on 16 January.

So it is becoming apparent to me that the phrase "received into custody" does indeed have a technical, specialised meaning, and seems to mean the date the prisoner was remanded by the magistrate. I'm not sure if it has to be specifically a remand into custody or it can involve being remanded on bail (or whether a prisoner is always remanded into custody before being remanded on bail). What seems to be emerging from the two examples is that it is not the date a prisoner is taken into custody by the police (although it can be, if the prisoner is arrested and brought before the magistrate on the same day, as with Mack in this case).

[David Orsam]

Another example. These two are on the same page on the Old Bailey calendar as Tumblety:

Henry Been and Alfred Barrett arrested on Friday 9 November by PC Osmond (per the Old Bailey Minutes of proceedings).

Before the magistrate at Mansion House Police Court on Saturday 10 November (per the Times of Monday 12 November).

Old Bailey Calendar says "received into custody" on 10 November.

(They were tried on 22 November)

A pattern is certainly emerging. What I need to find is the arrest and Police Court appearance dates of someone who was bailed.

[David Orsam]

Ah, now this is rather interesting.

Frederick John Dunsford.

He was arrested by Inspector Miller for forgery and stealing on 11 September 1888 (per the Old Bailey Minutes of Proceedings).

The Times (of 13 September) reports that he was brought before the magistrate at Clerkenwell Police Court on 12 September when bail was accepted in two sureties of £250 each.

The Old Bailey calendar has NO date under the column "received into custody". It only has a series of dots.

So I think we have a breakthrough. The date of "received into custody" is clearly the date the prisoner was remanded into custody. Where the prisoner was remanded on bail there is no date stated in the "received into custody" column.

From this I deduce that Tumblety WAS remanded into custody on 7 November after all (but might have been arrested on an earlier date).

Whether he was bailed after that I cannot say but I suspect that Trevor Marriott will be pleased with this conclusion!

[J6123]

Agree Ausgirl.

To me, there's 3 possibilities with the MJK kill.

A - It was Jack the Ripper

B - It was somebody else, and they tried to pose it as a Ripper kill

C - It was somebody else, and they didn't consciously pose it as a Ripper kill, it just ended up looking like one because the killer was identical to Jack the Ripper.

If there was a D I would phone Chris Tarrant and ask him to make this the first question on Who Wants to be a Millionaire.

Just realised I've posted this in the wrong thread. Was meant to be in the "Different Killers" thread. Is there a way of moving or deleting it?

Massively sorry for the inconvenience. Will I get banned?

[Robert]

Hi J6123

Not banned, just thumbscrews.

Simply copy and paste it on to the right thread.

[Robert]

Hi David

This one's from 1888 : Edwin Roberts, arrested 11th June, bailed 12th, received into custody 13th.

http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?id=t18880702-663&div=t18880702-663&terms=bailed#highlight

[David Orsam]

Good find! The only way I can make any sense of it is that he was released on police bail on the 12th to present himself at the Police Court on the 13th when he was remanded into custody a for day but subsequently "Bailed at the Petty Sessions", presumably on the 14th, at which time he was committed to trial.

[Robert]

Hi David

I must say, I do find all this rather confusing. This is from the Times March 9th 1889. According to the calendar, the defendant was received into custody on the date of her trial (at which she was found not guilty). Obviously we are dealing with highly technical language here.

[Robert]

The result, from March 22nd (I think the Times means March 9th, not 19th).

[David Orsam]

Hi Robert - I don't have any 1889 Calendars but, on the basis of the information you have provided, I think I can offer an explanation for what is going on here.

My suggestion is that when Mrs Child surrendered to her bail at the Middlesex Sessions on 21 March, she surrendered into custody. In other words, for a short period (hours or minutes) until her trial commenced, she was held in a cell, or it might not even have been as severe as that but technically she was in custody. So that does seem to make sense of the information.

Now, you might ask me why that was not the case for Mr Dunsford referred to above. Well, what happened at the Old Bailey is that his trial, which was supposed to take place during the 10 December 1888 session, was postponed and he was "Remanded until the next session" (so that, presumably, his recognizances were respited). For that reason, he was evidently not in custody at that point. My guess would be that when he took his trial at the Old Bailey in the 7 January 1889 session, the Calendar will say that he was received into custody on or about that date, but this can be checked

[Robert]

David, yes you are right - Jan 10th.

There is one of those curious notes next to his name, though it looks like a stamp rather than hand written. The name below has a hand written note.