Tumbleteazer

[David Orsam]

A little quiz question - a tumbleteazer - which should be an absolute doddle for anyone who still thinks that it is possible to tell whether Tumblety was in custody from the Court Calendar.

I have pasted in below an extract from the Middlesex Sessions Calendar for the sessions of 23 October 1888 (complied by the Governor of Holloway Prison who also compiled the Central Criminal Court Calendar so the information is presented in identical fashion). It shows that James Read (who was tried on 24 October), charged with a misdemeanor offence of obtaining money by false pretences, was Received into Custody on 11 October 1886, the same day as his Warrant for Committal at Thames Police Court.

The quiz question is this:

From the information in the Calendar, could James Read have committed a crime in Whitechapel during the evening of each of the following dates:

1. 11 October 1886

2. 12 October 1886

3. 13 October 1886

In case anyone suspects a trick, I can tell you that the information in the Calender is perfectly accurate and no error has been made.

But, still, all might not be as it seems. Anyway, good luck to those who think they understand the Calendar and I look forward to reading your accurate answers.

[Bridewell]

It would help if we could be told what the headings are at the top of each column (or at least those which aren't obvious from the content).

[David Orsam]

The heading for the column "Ditto" (in the James Read entry) is "Date of Warrant" and the heading for the date "11 Oct." is "When Received into Custody". Basically, it means that he was received into custody on the same day as his committal hearing, when the warrant of committal was made out, i.e. 11 October 1886. I think all the other columns are self-explanatory (or, if not, irrelevant).

[Scott Nelson]

Not being a legal expert by any means, I'll venture an educated guess. Read could have posted bail on October 11th, temporarily postponing his Warrant for Committal (because it was a misdemeanor) and been at liberty until his trial date of October 24th. Thus, he would have been free part of the 11th, and all of the 12th and 13th, etc.

[David Orsam]

Thank you for playing Scott, I didn't think anyone would even attempt a guess!

I like the way you are thinking. What you haven't quite factored into your answer, however, is that the Calendar says that Read was "Received into Custody" on 11 October 1888. This means that, upon committal, he was sent to Holloway prison (on the Warrant of Committal). That being so, how does he find himself in Whitechapel on the evening of 11 October?

For the avoidance of doubt, your answers (of "yes" for all three dates) are wrong. So does anyone else want to have a pop? I will post the correct answers later today.

[GUT]

Thank you for playing Scott, I didn't think anyone would even attempt a guess!

I like the way you are thinking. What you haven't quite factored into your answer, however, is that the Calendar says that Read was "Received into Custody" on 11 October 1888. This means that, upon committal, he was sent to Holloway prison (on the Warrant of Committal). That being so, how does he find himself in Whitechapel on the evening of 11 October?

For the avoidance of doubt, your answers (of "yes" for all three dates) are wrong. So does anyone else want to have a pop? I will post the correct answers later today.

To me it seems far to easy, he was out on bail.

[David Orsam]

It's not that easy GUT.

In fact, on the face of the Calendar, which says he was received into Custody on 11 October 1888, with no mention of bail up to and including his trial on 24 October, you should be telling me he was in prison the whole time.

[David Orsam]

Right then here are the answers.

To remind you of the question:

From the information in the Calendar, could James Read have committed a crime in Whitechapel during the evening of each of the following dates:

1. 11 October 1888 - Answer: No, because he was in prison.

2. 12 October 1888 - Answer: Yes.

3. 13 October 1888 - Answer: No, because he was in prison.

Now, the second part of this evil tumbleteazer is for someone to tell me how this state of affairs could possibly have happened.

And, please note, Read did not escape from prison, nor was he accidentally released through some kind of administrative error or anything like that. So how did he do it? How did Mr Read magically get himself into a position where he was on the streets and could have committed a crime during the evening of 12 October 1888 (although I'm sure he didn't!).

[Chris]

Right then here are the answers.

To remind you of the question:

From the information in the Calendar, could James Read have committed a crime in Whitechapel during the evening of each of the following dates:

1. 11 October 1888 - Answer: No, because he was in prison.

2. 12 October 1888 - Answer: Yes.

3. 13 October 1888 - Answer: No, because he was in prison.

Now, the second part of this evil tumbleteazer is for someone to tell me how this state of affairs could possibly have happened.

And, please note, Read did not escape from prison, nor was he accidentally released through some kind of administrative error or anything like that. So how did he do it? How did Mr Read magically get himself into a position where he was on the streets and could have committed a crime during the evening of 12 October 1888 (although I'm sure he didn't!).

Was he bailed on 12 October (unrecorded in the calendar) and then arrested on another charge?

[David Orsam]

No, but a good effort, and thank you for playing Chris.

[Chris]

No, but a good effort, and thank you for playing Chris.

Hmm. The only other thing I can think of is that he was taken back into custody because he somehow infringed the conditions of his bail. Otherwise I'm stumped (though having read your post on the "calendar code" that obviously explains why bail wouldn't be recorded in the calendar).

[David Orsam]

Firstly, thank you to Scott, GUT and Chris for all being good sports and attempting this tumbleteazer in the face of adverse odds of being able to get it right.

Here is the answer:

As we know from the Calendar, James Read was committed to trial at Thames Police Court on Thursday 11 October 1888. Being a misdemeanour charge, the magistrate, Mr Lushington, naturally allowed bail and set the bail at £200 in himself (Read) and, in addition, required two sureties of £100 each. As usual, the magistrate set out the bail terms of the reverse of the Warrant of Committal. This was in the following form:

I hereby certify that I consent to the within named Accused

Being bailed by Recognizance himself in:

Two hundred Pounds, and two Sureties in one hundred Pounds each

Signature of magistrate

Probably through not having sureties of that size lined up on the Thursday, Read spent the night in Holloway prison but he was bailed at the prison by the Prison Governor (Everard Milman) on Friday 12 October after his two sureties, Emily Cotterell and Henry William Turner, agreed that a sum of £100 would be levied on their "several goods, lands and tenements" if Read did not present himself to take his trial at the next Middlesex Sessions, as stated on the "Recognizance of Bail to appear for Trial" which they both signed along with Read himself and which was countersigned by the Prison Governor, dated 12 October 1888.

A certificate was also signed by an assistant clerk from Thames Police Court confirming that both sureties had satisfied the court of their ability to pay the sum of £100 in the event of the recognizances being estreated, dated 12 October 1888.

Read was thus free to walk out of Holloway Prison and, if he so desired, travel to Whitechapel to commit whatever crime he desired that evening.

On the following day however, Saturday 13 October, William Turner began to have second thoughts about what he had done and feared that Read might skip bail, causing him a huge financial loss. He contacted a police constable and told him he refused to stand bail for Read any longer. The police constable, not quite knowing what to do, brought Read back to Holloway Prison where Mr Turner insisted that Read be readmitted.

Read didn't have any other sureties to stand for him. Thus it was that James Read found himself back in Holloway prison on the 13th to await his trial.

How do I know all this? Because there is a Home Office file in the National Archives which sets it all out, containing a signed report by the Governor of Holloway Prison dated 15 October 1888.

Now, it's fair to say that this specific sequence of events was very unusual but it is simply one more example of why the Central Criminal Court Calendar cannot be relied upon for the bail history of any individual prisoner. It was not designed to provide this and does not do so.

I hope you all enjoyed this little tumbleteazer.