Tumblety's Bail - A Fresh Perspective

[David Orsam]

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 ?

That is a completely different issue and now we have to get into the psychology of Tumblety as well as the practical difficulties he faced in fleeing the country, getting false documentation, tickets for travel etc.. While on remand there was always a chance that the police would not be able to produce the necessary evidence to get him committed and he would thus be discharged. So why forfeit the bail he has been required to put in unnecessarily? He knows he is going to get bail at his committal hearing - it is the law of the land! - so on a cost/benefit analysis it could be said that the most rational thing to do is wait until the committal hearing has taken place.

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.

Come on Trevor, please, have mercy. I've already answered this. There are so many possibilities but just to give you one example (which I've already done in fact). Let's say that on 7 November only one surety is required by the magistrate. Then on 14 November two sureties are required. So the second one needs to get checked out.

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."

My goodness Trevor! How desperate have you now got in this thread that you are relying on what you have previously termed uncorroborated American newspaper reports, and what you describe as a secondary source to boot?!! Even if 100% accurate, that report is utterly useless in respect of us making an assessment as to anything connected with Tumblety's bail at the remand hearing on 7 November. It is simply saying that the two men who stood bail for him at the committal hearing had only known Dr T for a short time (so the police clearly used those 48 hours very well didn't they?).

[Trevor Marriott]

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

Thank you Simon for trying to tell him but he seems to be on a mission as you say against me, however I think it should be aptly named `Mission Impossible`

The sad thing is that he seem to have recruited followers on here who actually believe him

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[David Orsam]

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;-



Like I said - totally hilarious

With your superior legal knowledge, you should step into a time machine, set it for 3 October 1882 and go back to Worship Street Police Station to prevent the magistrate and defence counsel from having this "hilarious" exchange (already quoted in the OP):

"Mr Hannay said that he felt nervous about the question of bail, and must now decline to grant it, leaving counsel to go to a Judge at Chambers if they saw fit.

Mr Besley said that application could not be made until the prisoners were committed, and then they were entitled to bail, the charge being a misdemeanor. He was willing to take a committal at once.

Mr Hannay said that, of course, could not be; but if it was a fact that an application could not be made to a judge pending committal then, of course, the prisoner would be entitled to bail. He would consider the question."

[David Orsam]

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

You can word it however you like. Trevor was trying to prove the case conclusively so that there was absolutely no doubt in the matter. Anything less is a failure because it opens up doubt, which makes his efforts pointless.

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

Undoubtedly the silliest question I have been asked on this board so far. His error misled everyone on the board. It was important to demonstrate that he was wrong and why he was 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?

I know a lot of wealthy people Simon but I would only ask them to stand bail for me if I was desperate. If the bail was initially low, I would ask a less wealthy friend, but someone who I knew better. This isn't exactly rocket science either.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

OMG! I'm outta here.

I'm done with the homophonic Mr. Awesome.

Regards,

Simon

[Trevor Marriott]

That is a completely different issue and now we have to get into the psychology of Tumblety as well as the practical difficulties he faced in fleeing the country, getting false documentation, tickets for travel etc.. While on remand there was always a chance that the police would not be able to produce the necessary evidence to get him committed and he would thus be discharged. So why forfeit the bail he has been required to put in unnecessarily? He knows he is going to get bail at his committal hearing - it is the law of the land! - so on a cost/benefit analysis it could be said that the most rational thing to do is wait until the committal hearing has taken place.



Come on Trevor, please, have mercy. I've already answered this. There are so many possibilities but just to give you one example (which I've already done in fact). Let's say that on 7 November only one surety is required by the magistrate. Then on 14 November two sureties are required. So the second one needs to get checked out.



My goodness Trevor! How desperate have you now got in this thread that you are relying on what you have previously termed uncorroborated American newspaper reports, and what you describe as a secondary source to boot?!! Even if 100% accurate, that report is utterly useless in respect of us making an assessment as to anything connected with Tumblety's bail at the remand hearing on 7 November. It is simply saying that the two men who stood bail for him at the committal hearing had only known Dr T for a short time (so the police clearly used those 48 hours very well didn't they?).

Are you brain dead or what? It is stating a fact that Tumblety was bailed after committal and that two persons stood surety for him. It not saying he appeared at committal on bail with his sureties or that the amounts were amended

The newspaper article may not be a reliable source, but reliable or not it does corroborate what I have stated all along.

There is only one desperate person on this thread and that is you, desperate to try to disprove what I have previously suggested and so far you have failed miserably. So I would suggest you take yourself off and come back when you can conclusively prove what you suggest happened.

[Chris]

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

But the assumption, or conclusion, or whatever you want to call it, would be wrong in Ginger's case, wouldn't it?

So why should the conclusion be reasonable in Tumblety's case? What's the difference?

[David Orsam]

Are you brain dead or what? It is stating a fact that Tumblety was bailed after committal and that two persons stood surety for him. It not saying he appeared at committal on bail with his sureties or that the amounts were amended

The newspaper article may not be a reliable source, but reliable or not it does corroborate what I have stated all along.

There is only one desperate person on this thread and that is you, desperate to try to disprove what I have previously suggested and so far you have failed miserably. So I would suggest you take yourself off and come back when you can conclusively prove what you suggest happened.

The abuse and insults you are hurling at me only serve to frame your too obvious desperation at having your pet theory demolished.

The newspaper report is hopeless at understanding anything because that reporter was clearly not at the remand hearing nor at the committal hearing. It doesn't corroborate a single thing you have said. The only thing it does is provide an amount of bail that Tumblety was supposed to have found at or after committal and state that he had not known his sureties who stood bail for him at or after the committal hearing.

And in terms of whether Tumblety was in prison or at liberty on 9 November I am not suggesting anything other than we don't know (which is what you should have said many months, if not years ago). In the same way that no-one could answer my tumbleteazer, we can neither reasonably conclude Tumblety was in prison nor that he was at liberty because we simply don't have enough information to do so.

[Mr Lucky]

With your superior legal knowledge, you should step into a time machine, set it for 3 October 1882 and go back to Worship Street Police Station to prevent the magistrate and defence counsel from having this "hilarious" exchange (already quoted in the OP):

"Mr Hannay said that he felt nervous about the question of bail, and must now decline to grant it, leaving counsel to go to a Judge at Chambers if they saw fit.

Mr Besley said that application could not be made until the prisoners were committed, and then they were entitled to bail, the charge being a misdemeanor. He was willing to take a committal at once.

Mr Hannay said that, of course, could not be; but if it was a fact that an application could not be made to a judge pending committal then, of course, the prisoner would be entitled to bail. He would consider the question."

Oh dear. - More failed trolling !

They are talking about an application for bail, not a writ of habeas corpus, that's why they are using the term 'application' and not the term 'writ'

Why you have brought up Habeas corpus I have no idea, but it does demonstrate that you are totally out of your depth discussing the Victorian legal system - as you have shown time and time again during this thread.

The abuse and insults you are hurling at me only serve to frame your too obvious desperation at having your pet theory demolished

Ditto

[David Orsam]

Oh dear. - More failed trolling !

They are talking about an application for bail, not a writ of habeas corpus, that's why they are using the term 'application' and not the term 'writ'

Why you have brought up Habeas corpus I have no idea, but it does demonstrate that you are totally out of your depth discussing the Victorian legal system - as you have shown time and time again during this thread.

Mr Lucky,

With all due respect, you don't know what you are talking about.

The below is from the Times of 28 September 1870 reporting the case of R. v Bennett:

"Mr Justice Lush observed that except in cases of treason or felony, a man was entitled to liberty on giving proper bail. His Lordship referred to the Habeas Corpus Act, 31 Charles II, cap 2, and read a portion of that statute. His Lordship expressed his opinion that except for treason or felony a defendant had a right to be bailed and the amount was the only question.

Mr Lewis said his Lordship had surprised him by the view he had taken. In cases of misdemeanour bail was, he thought, in the discretion of the Judge, and in a recent case for misdemeanour, Mr Justice Willes had considered whether he would allow bail. At the police courts, in case of misdemeanour, bail was frequently refused.

Mr Justice Lush said no doubt magistrates had refused bail in misdemeanours, but they had no power to grant a writ of habeas corpus. His Lordship added that he believed other Judges took the same view of the subject….His Lordship was clearly of the opinion that in cases of misdemeanour a defendant was entitled as a right to be liberated on finding bail."

From the Times of 1 August 1888 in the case of Frost:

Mr Rose-Innes now moved ex parte, on behalf of the prisoner, for a rule of habeas corpus to admit her to bail. He moved, he said, under Section 3 of the Habeas Corpus Act of Charles II, under which in cases of misdemeanour it was obligatory on the Court to admit a prisoner to bail, though the magistrate or the Judge of the Court of trial had a discretion."

"The Court granted a rule nisi for a habeas corpus to admit the prisoner to bail.

From the Times of 8 August 1888:

Mr Mead for prosecution stated that "it was a curious anomaly of the law that the learned magistrate had discretion to refuse bail on a charge of this kind, while the Queen's Bench Division had no discretion to refuse it on a writ of habeas corpus"

The court admitted the prisoner to bail, herself in the sum of £500 and two sureties in £250 each."[/I]

From the Times of 8 August 1888:

"The Court the day before yesterday on the authority of two cases at Chambers – Queen v Bennett and Queen v Atkins - had granted a rule nisi for a habeas corpus."

To obtain a rule or writ of habeas corpus, you had to apply for it to a Judge in Chambers. It didn't magically fall out of the sky.

See the last sentence of a report of a hearing at Dalston Police Court, Times of 22 August 1889 (page 8):

"Mr Bros [to Counsel] - If you have a grievance apply to a Judge in Chambers for a writ of habeas corpus to bring her up. That is the only advice I can give you."

[Admin]

Virtually everyone on the Tumblety Fresh Perspective is receiving 2 points for personal attacks for the sum total of their posting on the thread/subject, or for a specific incident. The thread will be reopened this morning, and this is notice that anyone who makes another personal attack on the thread, or in relation to the subject of speaking to anyone regarding Tumblety or to anyone one is currently arguing with on the Tumblety thread will receive a month long suspension.

This holds for the next four weeks, regardless of the provocation or whether they have accrued sufficient points up to this point. Read the personal attack rules and conduct yourself accordingly.

Argue the case, not the personalities of the people involved.