Tumblety's Bail - A Fresh Perspective

[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

[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?

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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)

[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.)

[David Orsam]

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?

Asking me "Will you accept..." is a strange way of phrasing the question. Of course if the police had evidence of Tumblety having committed a felony they would have charged him with that felony. It doesn't mean they wouldn't charged with him with the misdemeanour too but, having been charged with a felony, section 21 of the Indictable Offences Act would not apply.

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

Assault with intent to commit felony and attempt to commit felony were both misdemeanors.

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)

Mullins was being charged with a misdemeanor.

[David Orsam]

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.)

Chris, I'm going to be dealing with this in detail in my next main post on the subject (hopefully tomorrow if I have the time)

[Mr Lucky]

Asking me "Will you accept..." is a strange way of phrasing the question. Of course if the police had evidence of Tumblety having committed a felony they would have charged him with that felony. It doesn't mean they wouldn't charged with him with the misdemeanour too but, having been charged with a felony, section 21 of the Indictable Offences Act would not apply.

Ok you won't accept it. Never the less if they had evidence of a felony they would charge him with that, and not with the misdemeanour. End of story

Mullins was being charged with a misdemeanor.

What kind of answer is that ? - you simply don't know what you are talking about do you ?

[David Orsam]

Ok you won't accept it. Never the less if they had evidence of a felony they would charge him with that, and not with the misdemeanour. End of story

I don't know what you mean by "End of story". You clearly have something on your mind but I believe you are very confused and don't actually understand what I have been saying in this thread.

What kind of answer is that ? - you simply don't know what you are talking about do you ?

I don't wish to be rude Mr Lucky but you either haven't read my original post very carefully or you haven't understood a word of it. You certainly haven't understood the case of R.v Mullins. I don't think I'm going to be able to help you.