Tumblety's Bail - A Fresh Perspective

[Chris]

From available documentary legal evidence it can be seen that Tumblety was received into custody [taken to prison] on Wednesday 7th November 1888. On Wednesday 14th November 1888 Tumblety was committed for trial, at which time he applied for bail. Bail was granted on Friday 16th November, on which day Tumblety was released from custody.

Based on this evidence, it must be assumed that Tumblety was in custody on 9th November 1888, the date of the Millers Court murder.

Maybe I'm missing something, but doesn't the entry relating to Henry George Ginger, posted by Dr Fell seven years ago, demonstrate that it's not safe to assume from those data that Tumblety was in custody until Friday 16th November?

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=4529&postcount=48

The entries seem to be parallel in all essentials, yet we know from a newspaper report of his committal that Ginger had been out on bail until then. (There is even the parallel circumstance that after his committal Ginger wasn't bailed until the following day.)

[Mr Lucky]

Trevor, I know exactly what the problem is here. You probably understand modern day bail procedure quite well but you are hopelessly lost when it comes to nineteenth century concepts of felonies and misdemeanors, or rather their consequences for bail. Had Tumblety been charged with a felony, your arguments might have some force; and considerations of flight risk would have entered the magistrate's thinking when deciding whether to grant bail. But with a misdemeanor it was a entirely different ball game and I don't think you fully understand the rules. Had you bothered to do any research into actual remand hearings for misdemeanors in the 1880s you would appreciate what I am saying. But it is clear to me, from the quality of your postings, that you have done no such research. All you did was consult a single textbook from 1907 (Douglas) and you misunderstood it, hence you have misled yourself all the way down the garden path.

Hello David

I'm glad you've brought this up.

Will you accept that if the police had evidence of a felony committed by Tumblety they wouldn't charge him with a misdemeanour at the magistrates?

- see the first two entries in your list in post one.

did you know a felony can be corpus delicti on a misdemeanour ? - and this can be deduced from the evidence given to the magistrate (I presume you didn't - as I would suggest it's the most likely explanation for circumstances in the r v mullins case you brought up)

[David Orsam]

it must be assumed that Tumblety was in custody at the time of the Millers Court murder.

Simon,

My OP in this thread responds to a claim by Trevor Marriott that, "the procedures open to the police and the courts in 1888... put him [Tumblety] in custody the night Mary Kelly was murdered.”

Earlier in this very thread, Trevor stated: "From what I have before me and my knowledge of the legal system and how it works I am happy to say he was in custody until he was granted bail with sureties on Nov 16th and "I hope this now clarifies the matter and you can now see that Tumblety was on remand in prison the night MJK was murdered".

Now you tell us, oh it's an assumption, there is no evidence but we should assume that Tumblety was in prison at the time of Kelly's murder. Well you can assume what you like. I'm making no positive case as to whether Tumblety was in custody or not, although I do say that it was very likely he was granted bail on 7 November. I have made it clear that the question we cannot currently answer is whether he was able to meet the bail conditions.

So I don't need to prove anything. He might have been in custody, he might have been at liberty. The main point of my post was to demonstrate that the sentence from Douglas that Trevor Marriott has repeatedly quoted in his posts provides no support whatsoever to the positive and unqualified assertion that Tumblety was in prison.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

From available documentary legal evidence it can be seen that Tumblety was received into custody [taken to prison] on Wednesday 7th November 1888. On Wednesday 14th November 1888 Tumblety was committed for trial, at which time he applied for bail. Bail was granted on Friday 16th November, on which day Tumblety was released from custody.

Based on this evidence, it must be assumed that Tumblety was in custody on 9th November 1888, the date of the Millers Court murder.

If anyone believes otherwise, the burden of proof is upon them.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

Maybe it is you and the others on here who have attached themselves to you should go away and prove what you say. Until then the balance of probabilities is in favor of Tumblety being in custody the night MJK was murdered.

Trevor, I know exactly what the problem is here. You probably understand modern day bail procedure quite well but you are hopelessly lost when it comes to nineteenth century concepts of felonies and misdemeanors, or rather their consequences for bail. Had Tumblety been charged with a felony, your arguments might have some force; and considerations of flight risk would have entered the magistrate's thinking when deciding whether to grant bail. But with a misdemeanor it was a entirely different ball game and I don't think you fully understand the rules. Had you bothered to do any research into actual remand hearings for misdemeanors in the 1880s you would appreciate what I am saying. But it is clear to me, from the quality of your postings, that you have done no such research. All you did was consult a single textbook from 1907 (Douglas) and you misunderstood it, hence you have misled yourself all the way down the garden path.

[Chris]

But as I keep saying no two cases are the same, so you can use one against the other to compare.

The point is that it makes nonsense of your claim that "there would be no need to increase the amounts. that would serve no purpose and the court would have simply agreed to those same amounts to continue," because those are general considerations that would apply to all cases or none.

[Trevor Marriott]

It's pointless to ask these questions, because we know that's precisely what happened in other cases. In Hamilton De Tatham's case, bail was set at £400 before committal, and raised to £500 at committal:
http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.p...1&postcount=83

But as I keep saying no two cases are the same, so you can use one against the other to compare.

[Trevor Marriott]

This just shows your lack of understanding of how it all worked in 1888. A perfectly plausible scenario is that on 7 November the police simply provided details of the arrest on a single indecency charge with no evidence against Tumblety offered to the magistrate. It's a petty misdemeanor so he remands him for a week and sets a low bail, perhaps with 24 hours notice to the police (hence Dr T goes to prison for a day) or no notice but Dr T needs a day to line up sureties (so again he goes to prison for a day).

Then, at the committal hearing on 14 Nov the police have added new indecency charges, the evidence is presented and it all looks bad for Dr T so the magistrate sets a much higher bail than before. In doing so, he either requires 48 hours notice to the police or no notice (or 24 hours notice) but it takes Dr T two days to line up the required increased sureties.

It really is very simple Trevor. And please don't huff and puff about "uncorroborated theories" and "wild speculation". It is YOU who is doing this by saying that Tumblety must have been in prison on 9 November. I'm not speculating about anything - I'm simply teling you what was possible. If you have any evidence to contradict me, isn't it time for you to produce it?

The facts and the evidence speak for themselves I don't need to prove it. It is you that needs to understand what is before you which you clearly do have the ability to do so. All you do is keep coming up with "what if`s" and side stepping the relevant points I put forward in support of what I suggest happened.

Maybe it is you and the others on here who have attached themselves to you should go away and prove what you say. Until then the balance of probabilities is in favor of Tumblety being in custody the night MJK was murdered.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[David Orsam]

However I suggest that he was not a suitable case where bail was considered for the many reasons I have previously stated.

Of course it was a suitable case for bail Trevor. That's why the magistrate actually in fact bailed him on 14 November!!!! It's abolute nonsense to say it wasn't suitable for bail when we know that Tumblety was bailed.

The weight of evidence is far greater to suggest he was not bailed that to suggest he was.

Well you haven't yet produced any evidence Trevor, other than Douglas who doesn't provide any support at all to your claim. If you actually produce some evidence then it might be possible to weigh the evidence but in the absence of any you cannot legitimately say that Tumblety was definitely in prison on 9 November.

[David Orsam]

If 1-4 prevail the sureties fixed amounts would have already been set on Nov 7th. On the 14th when he turned up there would be no need to increase the amounts. that would serve no purpose and the court would have simply agreed to those same amounts to continue. Why would they need to increase the amounts? the magistrate was happy in the first instance, and Tumblety had turned up for hi committal.

This just shows your lack of understanding of how it all worked in 1888. A perfectly plausible scenario is that on 7 November the police simply provided details of the arrest on a single indecency charge with no evidence against Tumblety offered to the magistrate. It's a petty misdemeanor so he remands him for a week and sets a low bail, perhaps with 24 hours notice to the police (hence Dr T goes to prison for a day) or no notice but Dr T needs a day to line up sureties (so again he goes to prison for a day).

Then, at the committal hearing on 14 Nov the police have added new indecency charges, the evidence is presented and it all looks bad for Dr T so the magistrate sets a much higher bail than before. In doing so, he either requires 48 hours notice to the police or no notice (or 24 hours notice) but it takes Dr T two days to line up the required increased sureties.

It really is very simple Trevor. And please don't huff and puff about "uncorroborated theories" and "wild speculation". It is YOU who is doing this by saying that Tumblety must have been in prison on 9 November. I'm not speculating about anything - I'm simply teling you what was possible. If you have any evidence to contradict me, isn't it time for you to produce it?

[Chris]

If 1-4 prevail the sureties fixed amounts would have already been set on Nov 7th. On the 14th when he turned up there would be no need to increase the amounts. that would serve no purpose and the court would have simply agreed to those same amounts to continue. Why would they need to increase the amounts? the magistrate was happy in the first instance, and Tumblety had turned up for hi committal.

It's pointless to ask these questions, because we know that's precisely what happened in other cases. In Hamilton De Tatham's case, bail was set at £400 before committal, and raised to £500 at committal:

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=233131&postcount=83

[Trevor Marriott]

Of course we've been over that many times (an obvious possibility is that the amount of bail was increased at committal).

But do you accept, in the light of David's explanation, that Douglas's statement, "the right of bail in misdemeanor does not arise until committal for trial," does not imply that Tumblety couldn't have been bailed before committal?

I do accept that he and anyone else was liable to be considered for bail before committal but also accept that it was not automatic and was at the discretion of the magistrate.

However I suggest that he was not a suitable case where bail was considered for the many reasons I have previously stated. The weight of evidence is far greater to suggest he was not bailed that to suggest he was.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Absolutely. An automatic statutory right to bail at committal that a magistrate would have been committing a criminal offence to deny (for a petty misdemeanor) and which a judge had to allow on request (for any type of misdemeanor). All Douglas was saying was that this automatic statutory right did not apply prior to committal. He was certainly not saying that magistrates were generally refusing bail for misdemeanors prior to committal or anything like that at all.

I keep saying your explanations regarding Tumblety and his bail are flawed. For the final time let me just comment of what you suggest :

1. He was bailed by the magistrate on Nov 7.

2. He was bailed with sureties at that time.

3. He then presented himself to the committal on Nov 14th with his sureties

4. He was committed and the sureties recognizances were increased

5. However you give no plausible explanation for the two days delay between
committal and bail

Lets look closely at those

If 1-4 prevail the sureties fixed amounts would have already been set on Nov 7th. On the 14th when he turned up there would be no need to increase the amounts. that would serve no purpose and the court would have simply agreed to those same amounts to continue. Why would they need to increase the amounts? the magistrate was happy in the first instance, and Tumblety had turned up for hi committal.

If you theory is correct then according to you, Tumblety was never in custody save for his arrest on Nov 7th. but of course that cannot be correct because Tumblety by his own admissions stated he did spend time in custody.

Your main stumbling block is the lost 48 hours. If he had surrendered to his bail on Nov 14th and had been granted bail, why was he not bailed until 2 days later. What happened and where was he?

If you say there was a need to increase bail what problem would that cause. It was a requirement that the sureties also had to attend court along with the prisoner. If they had agreed on Nov 7th why a problem on Nov 14th.

In this case I previously posted an extract from a newspaper which stated he was only bailed following his committal. which rules out your suggestion that he was bailed on Nov 7th.

Now you can huff and puff all you like but the facts and the chain of events are not going to change neither is the judicial system procedure. Your explanations are based on pure conjecture on your part.

If you are going to reply please do so with real facts and not uncorroborated theories and wild speculation.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Mayerling]

(p.s. and thank you Mayerling for your comment earlier which I omitted to acknowledge)

You are very welcome David. And I am so sorry that this argument just never seems to end!

Jeff

[David Orsam]

Thank you Amanda, and good luck!

Just to add on the newspaper point. If a newspaper report was ever found of the 7 November hearing, and it did (as I would predict) say that Hannay allowed bail for Tumblety, the controversy would still continue because we wouldn't know from the newspaper report if Tumblety ever found the bail from prison. And we obviously know from the Calendar that the good doctor wasn't liberated from the police court on 7 November but did go to prison that day. I have turned up loads of reports where bail is set at a remand hearing and then, at the time of the next hearing, the prisoner is reported to be still in custody. So we would need then need a report of the committal hearing to see if it says that Tumblety "surrendered to his bail" or was charged "on remand (on bail)" or was "brought up" [i.e. from the cells] which are expressions used, although sometimes it isn't entirely clear and the report might simply say the prisoner was "charged on remand" which could mean either that he was on bail or in custody.

If someone could turn up a register of prisoners and their arrival and release dates at Holloway prison that would be absolutely ideal here!