Tumblety's Bail - A Fresh Perspective

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

The cases quoted relate to sureties being obtained in the first instance before committal. Tumbleties sureties did not come into play until after committal. So he could not have been bailed before with sureties. So there could have been no amendment.

If he had sureties already in place from Nov 7th. There would be no need for the police/court to take 2 days to check them out on Nov 14th

Everyone seems to be missing the obvious that there was a 2 day gap between committal and bail. Thats not consistent with sureties already being in place

[Trevor Marriott]

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



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

You are absolutely right he is in a world of his own, he needs to stick to the facts and stop coming up with his "What if`s"

[Mr Lucky]

Hi All,

I appreciate most can not follow the point I made

R v Mullins

Mr Raffles: I exercise my discretion, knowing what I do of the case, and shall not grant bail.

Why does Mr Ruffles say this?

This charge involved a bank and 'false pretences', so the crime likely needed some sort of forgery to work. either by pretending to be someone else or falsifying a power of attorney, or forging some type of legal instrument - all of which is felony

Therefore in this case R. v Mullins, the charge is a misdemeanour (the theft - for which evidence exists) but the misdemeanour depended on whether the accused actually committed the act of forgery (felony - but for which there is no evidence)

So the felony is corpus delecti on the misdemeanour being proved

There is an ancient rule (going at least back to Hale) that once a felony was committed, all succeeding illegal acts are also felony.

This is why I would suggest that this case R v Mullins was treated differently by the magistrates regarding the granting of bail - despite only being able to charge him with a misdemeanour they refused him bail due to it technically being felony.

[Mr Lucky]

I don't think I'm going to be able to help you.

I don't want your help, thanks

[David Orsam]

The cases quoted relate to sureties being obtained in the first instance before committal. Tumbleties sureties did not come into play until after committal. So he could not have been bailed before with sureties. So there could have been no amendment.

If he had sureties already in place from Nov 7th. There would be no need for the police/court to take 2 days to check them out on Nov 14th

Everyone seems to be missing the obvious that there was a 2 day gap between committal and bail. Thats not consistent with sureties already being in place

Trevor, this has been explained to you over and over, again and again, including in this thread and you still don't seem to get it. It is remarkably simple. If Tumblety's bail was increased at the committal hearing then he would have needed to get his sureties sorted out all over again.

And your post contains an odd assumption. "Tumbleties sureties did not come into play until after committal." We have no idea whether Tumblety had sureties (whether the same individuals or different ones) on 8 November. We don't know what bail was set by the magistrate.

"he could not have been bailed before with sureties." Of course he could. What on earth are you talking about?

"If he had sureties already in place from Nov 7th. There would be no need for the police/court to take 2 days to check them out on Nov 14th". If the bail was increased from say £50 to £150 for each surety then the police need to check out that the sureties, previously checked out for £50, are good for £150. Or the original sureties were replaced with new ones. This is not rocket science.

No-one is missing the 2 day gap between committal and bail. It is consistent with sureties being in place if the bail was increased.

[Trevor Marriott]

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.)

I havnet studied this case in detail but from what I see, Ginger was out on bail before committal but it doesn't say if he had a surety or if he had been bailed in his own recognizance up until then. Now that doesn't necessary mean a monetary recognizance it could have been in his own recognizance.

After hearing the evidence he was duly committed it was at that point that the court were entitled to ask him for a monetary recognizance or a surety, and he was clearly remanded until he could come up with one or both and then he was bailed the next day when he did.

The two day Tumblety gap is a mirror image of the way the courts worked with regards to sureties

[David Orsam]

Hi All,

I appreciate most can not follow the point I made

R v Mullins

Mr Raffles: I exercise my discretion, knowing what I do of the case, and shall not grant bail.

Why does Mr Ruffles say this?

This charge involved a bank and 'false pretences', so the crime likely needed some sort of forgery to work. either by pretending to be someone else or falsifying a power of attorney, or forging some type of legal instrument - all of which is felony

Therefore in this case R. v Mullins, the charge is a misdemeanour (the theft - for which evidence exists) but the misdemeanour depended on whether the accused actually committed the act of forgery (felony - but for which there is no evidence)

So the felony is corpus delecti on the misdemeanour being proved

There is an ancient rule (going at least back to Hale) that once a felony was committed, all succeeding illegal acts are also felony.

This is why I would suggest that this case R v Mullins was treated differently by the magistrates regarding the granting of bail - despite only being able to charge him with a misdemeanour they refused him bail due to it technically being felony.

Well you have got it all wrong.

The reason the magistrate refused bail was because the sum in question that Mullins was being accused of obtaining by false pretences was a massive £16,000 (from the North-Western Bank).

If this was being treated as a felonly, the Defence Counsel, Mr Rodway, could not have said: "Seeing, sir, that there is an authority that bail will be given, and they are entitled to it if they go to London". The ability to apply to a Judge in Chambers for a writ of habeas corpus only applied to prisoners charged with misdemeanors.

The magistrate agrees because he says: "That is after the case was committed. I know the case you allude to, it was Justice Lush. I remember it." In other words, he is saying that Mullins could indeed go to see a judge in chambers to get himself released from custody (because he was only being charged with a misdemeanour) but he could not do so until committal. This would not apply to a felony charge.

Had you been right (which you aren't) I have no idea where you think it would have got you but being wrong we don't need trouble ourselves with that.

[Chris]

The cases quoted relate to sureties being obtained in the first instance before committal. Tumbleties sureties did not come into play until after committal. So he could not have been bailed before with sureties. So there could have been no amendment.

If he had sureties already in place from Nov 7th. There would be no need for the police/court to take 2 days to check them out on Nov 14th

Everyone seems to be missing the obvious that there was a 2 day gap between committal and bail. Thats not consistent with sureties already being in place

You don't seem to take in anything that's said to you.

[David Orsam]

I havnet studied this case in detail but from what I see, Ginger was out on bail before committal but it doesn't say if he had a surety or if he had been bailed in his own recognizance up until then. Now that doesn't necessary mean a monetary recognizance it could have been in his own recognizance.

It was, I believe, in his own recognizance in this case (and I will be supplying more details in due course) but that really doesn't get you anywhere. For Tumblety it could easily have been one surety at the remand hearing and then the magistrate at committal insisted on two sureties, causing the 48 hour delay between 14 and 16 November.

After hearing the evidence he was duly committed it was at that point that the court were entitled to ask him for a monetary recognizance or a surety

But the court were equally entitled to ask a prisoner for a monetary recognizance or a surety at the first remand hearing. So you are getting nowhere.

The two day Tumblety gap is a mirror image of the way the courts worked with regards to sureties

You keep saying things without providing a single authority to support your words.

[Chris]

I havnet studied this case in detail but from what I see, Ginger was out on bail before committal but it doesn't say if he had a surety or if he had been bailed in his own recognizance up until then.

Please follow the link I provided and read the post.

[Mr Lucky]

Well you have got it all wrong.

The reason the magistrate refused bail was because the sum in question that Mullins was being accused of obtaining by false pretences was a massive £16,000 (from the North-Western Bank).

If this was being treated as a felonly, the Defence Counsel, Mr Rodway, could not have said: "Seeing, sir, that there is an authority that bail will be given, and they are entitled to it if they go to London". The ability to apply to a Judge in Chambers for a writ of habeas corpus only applied to prisoners charged with misdemeanors.

The magistrate agrees because he says: "That is after the case was committed. I know the case you allude to, it was Justice Lush. I remember it." In other words, he is saying that Mullins could indeed go to see a judge in chambers to get himself released from custody (because he was only being charged with a misdemeanour) but he could not do so until committal. This would not apply to a felony charge.

Had you been right (which you aren't) I have no idea where you think it would have got you but being wrong we don't need trouble ourselves with that.

I don't think you are capable of understand the point I've made.

I'll leave you to your sophistry.

The ability to apply to a Judge in Chambers for a writ of habeas corpus only applied to prisoners charged with misdemeanors.

PS this is hilarious, I wont embarrass you by asking have you got a credible legal source for it.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor, this has been explained to you over and over, again and again, including in this thread and you still don't seem to get it. It is remarkably simple. If Tumblety's bail was increased at the committal hearing then he would have needed to get his sureties sorted out all over again.

And your post contains an odd assumption. "Tumbleties sureties did not come into play until after committal." We have no idea whether Tumblety had sureties (whether the same individuals or different ones) on 8 November. We don't know what bail was set by the magistrate.

"he could not have been bailed before with sureties." Of course he could. What on earth are you talking about?

"If he had sureties already in place from Nov 7th. There would be no need for the police/court to take 2 days to check them out on Nov 14th". If the bail was increased from say £50 to £150 for each surety then the police need to check out that the sureties, previously checked out for £50, are good for £150. Or the original sureties were replaced with new ones. This is not rocket science.

No-one is missing the 2 day gap between committal and bail. It is consistent with sureties being in place if the bail was increased.

When the committal took place on Nov 14 Tumblety would have had to appear. On this point I will say that if he was planning to abscond and clearly his later actions confirm that, then why did he not abscond between Nov 7-14th ?

If Tumbley already had sureties in place then they would have had to appear with him on Nov 14th they would already have been checked out so there would be no need to re check them again so there should have been no 48 hours delay.

The newspaper article tells us that there were only two who stood bail for him after his committal "AFTER" that means between Nov 14-16th.

" . . . Dr. Tumblety was committed for trial and liberated on bail, two gentlemen coming forward to act as bondsmen in the amount of $1500. On being hunted up by the police to-day, they asserted that they had only known the doctor for a few days previous to his arrest."

[David Orsam]

PS this is hilarious, I wont embarrass you by asking have you got a credible legal source for it.

You would only be embarrassing yourself because I already posted in my original post the credible legal source for the statement that the ability to
apply to a Judge in Chambers for a writ of habeas corpus only applied to prisoners charged with misdemeanors.

It's the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679 and I'll make it easier for you by highlighting the key words in bold:

"That, if any person or persons shall be committed for any crime (unless treason or felony) in the vacation term and out of term, it shall be lawful for the person or persons so committed (other than persons convict, or in execution by legal process) to complain to any one of the Judges…and the said Judge upon view of the copy of the warrant etc. or oath made that such copy was denied to be given by such person or persons in whose custody the prisoner was detained, are hereby authorized and required upon request made in writing by such person or persons to grant a habeas corpus."

[Mr Lucky]

You would only be embarrassing yourself because I already posted in my original post the credible legal source for the statement that the ability to
apply to a Judge in Chambers for a writ of habeas corpus only applied to prisoners charged with misdemeanors.

It's the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679 and I'll make it easier for you by highlighting the key words in bold:

"That, if any person or persons shall be committed for any crime (unless treason or felony) in the vacation term and out of term, it shall be lawful for the person or persons so committed (other than persons convict, or in execution by legal process) to complain to any one of the Judges…and the said Judge upon view of the copy of the warrant etc. or oath made that such copy was denied to be given by such person or persons in whose custody the prisoner was detained, are hereby authorized and required upon request made in writing by such person or persons to grant a habeas corpus."

Any one can apply for a writ of habeas corpus for any one at any time - that's the whole friggin point of it - I could apply for one so we could get your brain released from captivity if we knew where it was being held.

Your claim was this;-

The ability to apply to a Judge in Chambers for a writ of habeas corpus only applied to prisoners charged with misdemeanors.

Like I said - totally hilarious

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

On reflection, "reasonably conclude" would have been better than "assume."

If, as you say, you have nothing to prove, why on earth are you striving so hard to demonstrate that Trevor is wrong?

New York World, 2nd December 1888—

" . . . Dr. Tumblety was committed for trial and liberated on bail, two gentlemen coming forward to act as bondsmen in the amount of $1500. On being hunted up by police today, they asserted that they had only known the doctor for a few days previous to his arrest."

The "two gentleman" knew Tumblety prior to his arrest, which was between 2nd November [the date of Tumblety's last offence] and 7th November [the date Tumblety was "received into custody"].

They were just as good for $1500 on 7th November as they were on 14th November, so why on Tumblety's first appearance in court were their sureties not forthcoming/refused by the magistrate, resulting in Tumblety spending a week in the Clerkenwell House of Detention?

Regards,

Simon