Cracking The Calendar Code

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

Perhaps instead of being deeply patronizing you might care to attempt an answer to my question to Hercule, which was firmly on-topic.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

Perhaps instead of being deeply patronizing you might care to attempt an answer to my question to Hercule, which was firmly on-topic.

Hi Simon - if you have posed a question to Hercule, then it is for Hercule to answer it, non?

[Phil Carter]

a naive question.

Hello David,

May I ask a simple and somewhat naive question? Thank you.

IF a person..unnamed...happens to be arrested on one day (we can call it the 1st) and by his own admission states that he was in custody/in jail/locked up (etc) for "two or three days" upon being asked afterwards...am I correct in saying that he would therefore be in that position on the 3rd or possibly the 4th? ("two or three days").

Just asking. That's all.



Phil

[David Orsam]

Hello David,

May I ask a simple and somewhat naive question? Thank you.

IF a person..unnamed...happens to be arrested on one day (we can call it the 1st) and by his own admission states that he was in custody/in jail/locked up (etc) for "two or three days" upon being asked afterwards...am I correct in saying that he would therefore be in that position on the 3rd or possibly the 4th? ("two or three days").

Just asking. That's all.

Hi Phil, I personally would not believe a single word coming out of Tumblety's mouth but, having said that, we know four things for an absolute fact:

1. Tumblety was in prison on 7 November 1888.

2. Tumblety was in prison on 14 November 1888.

3. Tumblety was in prison on 15 November 1888.

4. Tumblety was released from prison on 16 November 1888.

I make that essentially three confirmed days in prison.

Naturally if he had been detained on 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 November, that would have been a total of nine days.

[David Orsam]

Right Trevor, I am going to follow Chris' sensible example and stop responding to your posts now because I will clearly never be able to communicate with you in any meaningful way. There is no point me replying to you in any case because all your questions have already been answered and it is perfectly obvious that you are not doing me the courtesy of reading and considering my posts. If, by any miracle, however, you say something new or relevant I will respond. As you seem to have had a bee in your bonnet today about your latest question (which is virtually identical to the question I have already answered, as Chris as noted) I will indulge you one final time and answer in a different way.

Your newly worded question:

"If bail before committal was at the discretion of the magistrate what circumstances would cause the magistrate to use his discretion and not grant bail ?"

My answer:

A magistrate could exercise his discretion to refuse bail before committal for whatever reason he wanted, and under any circumstances. For misdemeanour offences, however, it was rare in practice for that discretion to be exercised because, after committal, bail was either (a) automatically granted by the magistrate (for "petty" misdemeanors) or (b) automatically granted upon application to a Judge in Chambers (for grave misdemeanors). That being so, it was essentially irrational for bail to be refused (because the prisoner was bound to be granted bail at or after committal). This is more so for petty misdemeanors, where an application wasn't even required under the statute at the committal hearing and the magistrate himself had to admit to bail (as opposed to an application having to be made to a judge). The most obvious reason for a refusal to admit to bail prior to committal for a misdemeanour offence would be if there was a likelihood of more a serious charge to follow (i.e. a felony offence) in which case it would then be perfectly rational for the magistrate to wait until the committal hearing before coming to a decision, and he might well refuse bail on remand.

In terms of a high possibility of the prisoner becoming a fugitive from justice, it's not impossible in respect of a serious case of grave misdemeanour charge that such a factor might be relevant, in the sense of a magistrate wanting to put the responsibility of such an important decision off to a judge of the Queen's Bench Division. I have referred to the case of Annie Frost charged (with two others) at Westminster Police Court on 2 July 1888 with "conspiring to obtain divers sums of money with intent to cheat and defraud" which was a misdemeanor. At her first remand hearing, Inspector Marshall said "there would be many further charges" (Times 3 July 1888) and the magistrate, Mr d'Eyncourt, refused bail. At the next remand hearing, on 9 July 1988, Frost's lawyer asked for bail on her behalf. In his submission, he claimed that Inspector Marshall had made an "unjust and cruel assertion" that she had been in prison in Scotland. He said: "I press for bail for all the prisoners, and I say that when the case for the prosecution is disposed of, I shall submit a point of law which I think will be fatal to it, and if I do not succeed I shall be able to produce facts that will put a very different complexion on the proceedings". This seemed to sway the magistrate and he said: "If I take bail it must be very good bail – two sureties in £100 each." At this point, Inspector Marshall became very concerned and said: "I repeat that this woman has been convicted before, and I shall bring evidence of it. On that ground and on account of the magnitude of the alleged frauds, I ask for most substantial bail – otherwise we shall never see her again. This is not an ordinary case, the prisoner is an extraordinary woman, one of the greatest swindlers in the country". What I find interesting about this quote is that, despite his clear belief that Frost was going to flee, the inspector still believed that she was likely to be bailed and was hoping for very high bail that she could not find. In response to questions from the magistrate, Marshall he said that she had committed hundreds if not thousands of frauds and, in the face of such police pressure the magistrate wilted and refused bail (Times, 10 July 1888). At the next hearing on 16 July, one of the three prisoners was bailed (Robert Gigner) but Frost and her "husband" were still refused it (Times, 17 July 1888). At the committal hearing on 23 July 1888, the charges were stated to be "a general conspiracy to defraud, and obtaining goods and money by means of worthless cheques and false representations" (clearly a grave misdemeanour under the heading of obtaining property by false pretences). At this hearing, the defence lawyer, Mr Lewis argued that the prisoners were entitled to bail, saying; "Substantial sureties could be given. The charges were all misdemeanors.", Mr Wotner, for the prosecution, countered, "I am afraid if you let her out on bail we shall never see her again." In response: "Mr d'Eyncourt said he would not publicly state his reasons, but bail would be refused." (Times, 24 July 1888).

As mentioned in my OP, Frost applied to a Judge in Chambers for a writ of habeas corpus and was, indeed, granted bail but, it seems, despite the fuss and great expense to achieve this, was unable to find the sureties and remained in custody.

I hope that answers your question.

[Phil Carter]

Hi Phil, I personally would not believe a single word coming out of Tumblety's mouth but, having said that, we know four things for an absolute fact:

1. Tumblety was in prison on 7 November 1888.

2. Tumblety was in prison on 14 November 1888.

3. Tumblety was in prison on 15 November 1888.

4. Tumblety was released from prison on 16 November 1888.

I make that essentially three confirmed days in prison.

Naturally if he had been detained on 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 November, that would have been a total of nine days.

Hello David,

Thank you for the reply. Most kind of you.

Do you happen to know if Tumblety was referring to a COMBINED amount of days gathered from the examples you gave..or that he was referring to ONE SPECIFIC arrest when quoting his time period?

You see..I am having a little trouble with all of this.

It is called references to newspaper reports and quotes.

What is clearly bothering me is this.
It seems to me that whichever way the wind blows in favour or against any so called suspect..It is a regarded as a warm wind when the newspaper report (whichever one picks out of the thousands relating to the murders) favours a favoured (in the eyes of the reader) suspect or vice versa.

It seems to this naive onlooker..that the word "might" may be over-used/emphasised here. Even turned around to "prove" (quote JH in an earlier post) something or not.

My naive point is this.

1.Picking and choosing newspaper reports is a hazardous game.
2. Picking and choosing the VERACITY of an individual's quote in a newspaper report is loaded.

nobody can with any amount if certainty know what Tumblety was referring to and when..The times and the dates are not quoted. Nobody knows if Tumblety is playing down the length of time of not in the interview and nobody can use these words as gospel/rubbish. However much you or X..Y..or Zealand disbelieve a word the man says...The fact is it is a direct quote. Interpretation of that quote..or any quote..must be liable to the same respect/disrespect as all other quotes throughout history.

For all you know the an could have been misquoted. For all you know he could be defective in his answer.

I keep thinking. Tumblety self promoted his "invovement" in the JTR story. He certainly didn't promote his involvement in a vice scandal. He would want a to keep that we'll under wraps.
Therefore it seems logical to me..perhaps naive I admit..that Tumblety would adjust the truth accordingly to attract the correct amount of attention whilst deflecting away from what he would regard as more personally damaging.
Sort of.."I was caught up in the hunt for JTR when there you know"..but was able to prove my innocence". Not a hint of anything else would be thought of in the eyes of the readers or listeners..because Jack the Ripper was THE story. Worldwide.

but hey...I'm just observing. That's how I personally see his character traits. Human behaviour if you like. The more the intelligence..The more cleverly deceptive people are should they so wish to be. That's an observation from life. Criminals have been deceptively clever through the ages. As have others who need to use an idea in order to promote. Human behaviour is reflected and copied in many a way.

Thanks again for your reply.


Phil

[Hercule Poirot]

Hi Hercule,

Tumblety was remanded in custody on 7th November 1888 on charges of gross indecency, his last offense being on 2nd November 1888.

All I want to know is when Tumblety was arrested and subsequently released on suspicion of being Jack the Ripper.

Was it before or after Millers Court?

Regards,

Simon

Your question is not only relevant, legitimate but also shared by many included myself. Even if the legal process would have allowed Tumblety to apply for a bail which he most likely has done, pieces of the puzzle are still missing.

In other words, accepting the existence of the legal process as explained by David is one step which cannot be denied as Trevor has been doing. But it does not imply Tumblety benefited from it which is another step still open to discussion. Trevor refuses to see the difference!!!

[Chris]

Right Trevor, I am going to follow Chris' sensible example and stop responding to your posts now because I will clearly never be able to communicate with you in any meaningful way. There is no point me replying to you in any case because all your questions have already been answered and it is perfectly obvious that you are not doing me the courtesy of reading and considering my posts. If, by any miracle, however, you say something new or relevant I will respond.

I don't know whether you've considered this, but I think it would be an excellent idea if you wrote up the substance of your recent posts as an article for one of the Ripper journals.

For myself, I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that the online forums aren't a suitable place for research to be presented, because discussions can too easily be disrupted by even one unreasonable person.

[David Orsam]

Hello David,

Thank you for the reply. Most kind of you.

Do you happen to know if Tumblety was referring to a COMBINED amount of days gathered from the examples you gave..or that he was referring to ONE SPECIFIC arrest when quoting his time period?

No problem Phil. My next words may surprise you. I have absolutely no idea what was going on in Tumblety's head when he spoke to a reporter in 1888 or whenever it was.

As far as I am concerned, that particular newspaper report has little or no evidential value in determining the question of whether Tumblety was at liberty on 9 November and I would not even have mentioned it had you not asked me a fairly simple mathematical question which I felt I could attempt quite easily.

[Chris]

Tumblety was remanded in custody on 7th November 1888 on charges of gross indecency, his last offense being on 2nd November 1888.

All I want to know is when Tumblety was arrested and subsequently released on suspicion of being Jack the Ripper.

Was it before or after Millers Court?

There are two different questions here, aren't there? One about the strength of the police suspicions against Tumblety in relation to the Whitechapel Murders, and the other about whether Tumblety actually had an alibi for Kelly's murder.

One can be sceptical about the first without making a claim about the second that goes well beyond the available evidence.

[Phil Carter]

No problem Phil. My next words may surprise you. I have absolutely no idea what was going on in Tumblety's head when he spoke to a reporter in 1888 or whenever it was.

As far as I am concerned, that particular newspaper report has little or no evidential value in determining the question of whether Tumblety was at liberty on 9 November and I would not even have mentioned it had you not asked me a fairly simple mathematical question which I felt I could attempt quite easily.

Hello David,

Thank you for your reply and your opinion.
Open discussion can certainly be a healthy thing.opinions may vary..but the chance to air them in a friendly manner is certainly a blessing in this day and age.

I always dispise a presentation or talk without the chance to ask a question or two. Non restrictive community Involvement
I call it. Thanks again.


Phil

[David Orsam]

I don't know whether you've considered this, but I think it would be an excellent idea if you wrote up the substance of your recent posts as an article for one of the Ripper journals.

For myself, I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that the online forums aren't a suitable place for research to be presented, because discussions can too easily be disrupted by even one unreasonable person.

That is very good of you to say so Chris and, yes, perhaps I should have done it that way from the start but, you know, even if I knew who to contact for this, it all sounds bit too much like hard work in preparing it to be published (ripperology is not my primary interest & I have a full time job) and there is inevitably a long delay before publication. Posting it on the forum allowed me to get it out very quickly and I can now move on to other research topics.

Where I take a slightly different view from you is that I like the immediacy of the responses on the forum, the chance to defend one's work and have it probed for weakness, the development of a collective view and if we both have the same person in mind there is no question but that he has done the most on this forum to support my thesis. Everyone can see through a weak argument and, when the argument against me is so appallingly bad, it's like a dream. He couldn't have done a better job for me if I was paying him!

But if anyone else would like to develop the points made for publication I'd be more than happy, especially if anyone can add anything to it.

[Mayerling]

Can I make a suggestion?

David has proven that the anti Tumblety-jail-alibi-Kelly position, which had claimed to be a definitely ascertained fact, is nothing of the kind. The evidence points to be it being more likely that Tumblety was out for the 9th.

As I, and others have pointed out, it is also a logical absurdity that Tumblety would not have used this iron-clad alibi in his 1889 interview (or that Anderson would have requested his handwriting from American authorities, or have Andrews do a background check in Canada, or that Jack Littlechild would have still considered the quack, in 1913, a likely suspect).

My suggestion is that we should just stop as people are wasting their time if they think that a logical argument backed up by primary sources (Trevor, you still mistake second-hand for secondary) will convince him that he might be wrong.

Because Trevor cannot admit that without losing face.

He is thus fighting from a hopelessly over-run position and damn the evidence (what evidence, you suspect-driven pygmies!) He is LBJ promising never to lose South Viet Nam, Custer at Little Big Horn, or, even better, the Black Knight with most of his limbs having been hacked off yet still howling he will win by biting his opponents to death (to be fair to Python's unforgettable character even he concedes it is a draw at the conclusion of his comprehensive defeat by Arthur. That isn't gonna happen here, folks).

Let us just stop wasting human energy and instead go and admire the trees and the sky and the flowers ...

A bit late on responding here Jonathan, but a blessed amen to your comment. I have never seen such pilpul outside the Talmud as on these recent threads. How far can one split hairs?

It's a lovely day and I'm going out to look at the sky and trees.

Jeff

[Chris]

or, even better, the Black Knight with most of his limbs having been hacked off yet still howling he will win by biting his opponents to death

Black Knight: 'Tis but a scratch!
King Arthur: A scratch? Your arm's off!
Black Knight: No, it isn't!

[Trevor Marriott]

This unattributed quotation of yours does not, in fact, corroborate anything. As you must know, but failed to mention, it actually comes from the 1912 Edition of the Police Code (and doesn't even appear in the 1889 Edition - although frankly that doesn't matter because it is irrelevant anyway!). It is to be found in a paragraph in the Police Code commencing "Admission to Bail by a Police Officer". In other words, it is applicable only to police bail and relates in no way to a magistrate who did not take or require advice from the police on how to do his job.

If the objections to bail thus applies at that stage then they surely could have applied to a magistrate and he would have been able to apply the same to applications to bail and he did