Cracking The Calendar Code

[GUT]

I dont know what the relevance of that question is to the issues being discussed. Like I keep saying no two case are the same now, and no 2 cases were the same in 1888.

Just for the record I have been accused of inventing grounds for the magistrates on Nov 7th for not granting bail some of which included

Risk of absconding
Likely to commit further offences
Likely to interfere with witnesses

I also made mention of the reasons why police under certain circustances in the first instance would not grant bail in 1888, which are fully documented and, which were in line with some of those. So anyone who thinks that a court in considering a bail application in 1888 would not consider those same factors using their discretaion on bail is deluded.

These objections to the granting of bail have been used in practice since 1888 up to the present day here is an extract from the bail act 1976 legislation

Part I
Defendants Accused or Convicted of Imprisonable Offences

Defendants to whom Part I applies

1 Where the offence or one of the offences of which the defendant is accused or convicted in the proceedings is punishable with imprisonment the following provisions of this Part of this Schedule apply.

Exceptions to right to bail

2 The defendant need not be granted bail if the court is satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that the defendant, if released on bail (whether subject to conditions or not) would—
(a)fail to surrender to custody, or

(b)commit an offence while on bail, or

(c)interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstruct the course of justice, whether in relation to himself or any other person.

[F12AThe defendant need not be granted bail if—
(a)the offence is an indictable offence or an offence triable either way;

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor don't you read what you quote before you quote it;

there are two words there that cry out "need not" not must not, not may not, not even should not, but need not. don't you grasp the import of those words?

[GUT]

I dont know what the relevance of that question is to the issues being discussed. Like I keep saying no two case are the same now, and no 2 cases were the same in 1888.

Just for the record I have been accused of inventing grounds for the magistrates on Nov 7th for not granting bail some of which included

Risk of absconding
Likely to commit further offences
Likely to interfere with witnesses

I also made mention of the reasons why police under certain circustances in the first instance would not grant bail in 1888, which are fully documented and, which were in line with some of those. So anyone who thinks that a court in considering a bail application in 1888 would not consider those same factors using their discretaion on bail is deluded.

These objections to the granting of bail have been used in practice since 1888 up to the present day here is an extract from the bail act 1976 legislation

Part I
Defendants Accused or Convicted of Imprisonable Offences

Defendants to whom Part I applies

1 Where the offence or one of the offences of which the defendant is accused or convicted in the proceedings is punishable with imprisonment the following provisions of this Part of this Schedule apply.

Exceptions to right to bail

2 The defendant need not be granted bail if the court is satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that the defendant, if released on bail (whether subject to conditions or not) would—
(a)fail to surrender to custody, or

(b)commit an offence while on bail, or

(c)interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstruct the course of justice, whether in relation to himself or any other person.

[F12AThe defendant need not be granted bail if—
(a)the offence is an indictable offence or an offence triable either way;

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

And the relevance of the questio0n should be obvious, if people who shouldn't get bail do get it, why couldn't FT have been granted bail even if we accept your claims that it should have been denied.

[Amanda]

Just wondering......

Trevor, you quoted the Bail Act Legislation of 1976, could that not be very different from the 1888 guidelines?

Amanda

[PaulB]

Definitive answer ! if you think that, then there is no hope for you. The plot is well and truly lost.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

That doesn't really help your case.

Neither does this:

"you are getting taken in by it,"

Chris has consistently displayed an intelligence which suggests that he doesn't easily get taken in by anything.

"but you cant see that because there is a desperate need to keep Tumblety alive as a suspect."

There is no desperate need to keep Tumblety alive as a suspect and there is no reason whatsoever to suppose that Chris entertains any such 'desperate need'.

"... coupled with our ability to fully understand what is before us. Which you and others seem to not be able to do because of all the irrelevant crap he is putting forward, just look at the length of his posts."

Again, nobody here is likely to be put off by David's long posts and they're more than capable of detecting "irrelevant crap".

These are the words of someone who is on the ropes, who has no argument left, who flails around in desperation. If this is the best you can do, you should throw the towel in.

Basically, as far as I can tell, David has laid out in great detail an argument that almost everyone seems to find persuasive, whereas you haven't, and your responses were looking increasingly desperate and, frankly, embarrasing. I have urged you to present a coherent argument, to make your case plain and clear, but it seems to me (and more importantly to almost every commentator here) that its an argument lost.

[PaulB]

Hello Paul,

I'm sorry I'm going off topic but is it now possible to obtain copies of Rip? The last time I checked the website site didn't appear to be operational- I was trying to obtain the issue containing the Isschenschmidt article, which in the end Lynn Cates was kind enough to forward to me. I sent an email but received no reply. Do you need to be on a mailing list? Is it possible to obtain back copies?

Regards,

John

Hi John
I will ask Adam to contact you about regularly being sent the Rip, which is free! And I think it is possible to obtain every copy since it went digital.

Paul

[GUT]

Just wondering......

Trevor, you quoted the Bail Act Legislation of 1976, could that not be very different from the 1888 guidelines?

Amanda

No Trevor keeps saying that no 2 cases are the same and he is right [but there is a little thing called precedent all the same] but knows that the 1976 Act would be the same as that used in 1888. Go figure, but I think I may just drop this thread as the answer is obvious to anyone who thinks, Tumblety MAY [and it is only a may] have been out on 9 Nov, there is no evidence to rule that out.

In fact on the balance of probabilities he was, but that is not beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Trevor Marriott]

That doesn't really help your case.

Neither does this:

"you are getting taken in by it,"

Chris has consistently displayed an intelligence which suggests that he doesn't easily get taken in by anything.

"but you cant see that because there is a desperate need to keep Tumblety alive as a suspect."

There is no desperate need to keep Tumblety alive as a suspect and there is no reason whatsoever to suppose that Chris entertains any such 'desperate need'.

"... coupled with our ability to fully understand what is before us. Which you and others seem to not be able to do because of all the irrelevant crap he is putting forward, just look at the length of his posts."

Again, nobody here is likely to be put off by David's long posts and they're more than capable of detecting "irrelevant crap".

These are the words of someone who is on the ropes, who has no argument left, who flails around in desperation. If this is the best you can do, you should throw the towel in.

Basically, as far as I can tell, David has laid out in great detail an argument that almost everyone seems to find persuasive, whereas you haven't, and your responses were looking increasingly desperate and, frankly, embarrasing. I have urged you to present a coherent argument, to make your case plain and clear, but it seems to me (and more importantly to almost every commentator here) that its an argument lost.

I am far from desperate, it seems that others are more desperate to disprove what I have suggested happened. What he has set out may be persuasive to those who cant understand the procedures, or shall I say dont want to understand. for to understand may prove me right and hey we would want that to happen would be?

[Trevor Marriott]

No Trevor keeps saying that no 2 cases are the same and he is right [but there is a little thing called precedent all the same] but knows that the 1976 Act would be the same as that used in 1888. Go figure, but I think I may just drop this thread as the answer is obvious to anyone who thinks, Tumblety MAY [and it is only a may] have been out on 9 Nov, there is no evidence to rule that out.

In fact on the balance of probabilities he was, but that is not beyond a reasonable doubt.

And the same balance can apply to the fact that he wasnt but I suggest the balance of probabilities is in favour or him being locked up, so there is where it must be left for now, who knows what might come out of the woodwork to prove conclusively one way or the other.

[John G]

Hello Trevor,

The facts as I see them are these. Tumblety,who for the record I consider a very weak suspect, must have been brought before the Police Court on the 7th November, because he was remanded into custody on that date, and he could have been remanded either with or without bail. However, under the provisions of the Indictable Offences Act, 1848, he had to be offered bail at his committal hearing as he was charged with a petty misdemeanour- the court would have no discretion under these circumstances, even if they considered him an extreme flight risk.

Therefore, to deny bail on the 7th would simply have the effect of delaying the inevitable, i.e the fact that he would have to be offered bail at his committal hearing. Now you have cited the provisions of s38 the Summary Justice Act, 1879, which offers guidance as to the circumstances when bail should be granted, but this governs police bail where there has been an arrest without warrant.

However, I'm prepared to accept that the Police Court might have used the provisions of S38 as guidance, however, did this happen in practice? As I have noted previously, this would surely be little more than a vexatious act, as Tumblety had to be offered bail at his committal hearing- there was no discretion. In fact, David states that he has checked numerous newspaper records from the era and cannot find a single case where bail was denied by the Police Court in respect of a petty misdemeanour. Of course, there might be circumstances where bail could have been denied, for instance, if the magistrates were informed that more serious charges were likely to follow, however, it is surely incumbent on those who assert that Tumblety was likely to be refused bail to cite precedent, i.e. examples of where bail was refused by the Police Court for petty misdemeanours.

Of course, none of this means that he was in fact released from custody by the 9th of November. It should remembered that after being remanded on the 14th November-following his committal hearing, when bail may have been increased- he wasn't released until the 16th November, so there was clearly some delay in providing sureties; that could clearly have been the case on the 7th November as well.

I fully appreciate your argument that every case should be considered on its merits, however, it seems to me that the weight of evidence at the moment favours the proposition that, for petty misdemeanours, bail was virtually automatic at the Police Court hearing-except perhaps if the Court could be satisfied that more serious charges were likely to be added- as to deny bail for such offences, whatever the circumstances of the case, would simply be delaying the inevitable, i.e. the statutory right to bail at the committal hearing.

[John G]

Hi John
I will ask Adam to contact you about regularly being sent the Rip, which is free! And I think it is possible to obtain every copy since it went digital.

Paul

Thanks Paul, this is much appreciated, especially as Rip is now free and there are a number of back issues I may be interested in.

[PaulB]

I am far from desperate, it seems that others are more desperate to disprove what I have suggested happened. What he has set out may be persuasive to those who cant understand the procedures, or shall I say dont want to understand. for to understand may prove me right and hey we would want that to happen would be?

See, you're at it again. I think people here are more than able to understand the procedures and have no reason not to 'want to understand'.

Or people are biased against you, which I take it is what you are trying to suggest in your last sentence, but you have an apalling track record, Trevor. from plagiarising your first book to doing pretty much the same with Myths and Mysteries, that the idea of you being right, especially when you attempt to defend your case with such cheap and obvious tactics as previously outlined, seems an utterly alien concept. You must understand that nobody in their right mind should accept anything you say without strong argument and evidence in support of it. That's a consequence of your history, a fact of life.

The thing is, as said, I don't care whether Tumblety was in custody or not in custody, but it would be nice to state the likelihood of either in the next A to Z.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello Trevor,

The facts as I see them are these. Tumblety,who for the record I consider a very weak suspect, must have been brought before the Police Court on the 7th November, because he was remanded into custody on that date, and he could have been remanded with or without bail. However, under the provisions of the Indictable Offences Act, 1848, he had to be offered bail at his committal hearing as he was charged with a petty misdemeanour- the court would have no discretion under these circumstances.

Therefore, to deny bail on the 7th would simply have the effect of delaying the inevitable, i.e the fact that he would have to be offered bail at his committal hearing. Now you have cited the provisions of s38 the Summary Justice Act, 1879, which offers guidance as to the circumstances when bail should be granted, but this governs police bail where there has been an arrest without warrant.

However, I'm prepared to accept that the Police Court might have used the provisions of S38 as guidance, however, did this happen in practice? As I have noted previously, this would surely be little more than a vexatious act, as Tumblety had to be offered bail at his committal hearing, there was no discretion. In fact, David states that he has checked newspaper records from the era and cannot find a single case where bail was denied by the Police Court in respect of a petty misdemeanour. Of course, there might be circumstances where bail could have been denied, for instance, if the magistrates were informed that more serious charges were likely to follow, however, it is surely incumbent on those who assert that Tumblety was likely to be refused bail to cite precedent, i.e. examples of where bail was refused by the Police Court for petty misdemeanours.

Of course, none of this means that he was in fact released from custody by the 9th of November. It should remembered that after being remanded on the 14th November-following his committal hearing, when bail may have been increased- he wasn't released until the 16th November, so there was clearly some delay in providing sureties; that could clearly have been the case on the 7th November as well.

I fully appreciate your argument that every case should be considered on its merits, however, it seems to me that the weight of evidence at the moment favours the proposition that, for petty misdemeanours, bail was virtually automatic at the Police Court hearing, as to deny bail for such offences, whatever the circumstances of the case, would simply be delaying the inevitable, i.e. the statutory right to bail at the Committal hearing.

The only fly in the ointment with what you say is that Tumbletys charges were not petty misdemeanors, the were indictable misdemeanors, petty misdemeanors could be tried at magistrates court, and yes you are probably right that persons charged with those would have no doubt been granted bail. But the more serious cases would be looked at in a different light with regards to bail

So as I said in my previous reply to you there was more of an onus on a court to ensure someone with Tumbletys antecedents etc acutely made it to the committal and in his case because he was a flight risk they would have kept him in custody.

If he had have been bailed he would have absconded asap, which is what he did after the committal so that shows his early intent to abscond and shows that the court were right to remand him in custody because they had that same belief and were proved right

[Trevor Marriott]

See, you're at it again. I think people here are more than able to understand the procedures and have no reason not to 'want to understand'.

Or people are biased against you, which I take it is what you are trying to suggest in your last sentence, but you have an apalling track record, Trevor. from plagiarising your first book to doing pretty much the same with Myths and Mysteries, that the idea of you being right, especially when you attempt to defend your case with such cheap and obvious tactics as previously outlined, seems an utterly alien concept. You must understand that nobody in their right mind should accept anything you say without strong argument and evidence in support of it. That's a consequence of your history, a fact of life.

The thing is, as said, I don't care whether Tumblety was in custody or not in custody, but it would be nice to state the likelihood of either in the next A to Z.

I agree there, but as is stands we can only go on the balance of probabilities based on what is presented. I have no qualms about going head to head with David as an when he produces something to back up what he is suggesting happened because to date he has not.

He cannot prove that Tumbety was bailed on Nov 7 or any date thereafter before the committal.

He says Tumblety was bailed sometime between Nov 7-8 with sureties, But he cannot prove this.

He says that it would have only taken 24 hours to check out bail sureties following his Nov 7th appearance, but we know that it could have taken up to 48 hours.

He does however, accept that Tumblety was bailed on Nov 14th and does accept that he was not released until Nov 16th.

With regards to the 48 hour delay he suggests that was because he already had sureties in place as a result of his earlier bail with sureties, and that the delay was because the court wanted to increase the amounts and needed to be satisfied that the sureties were good for revised amounts- Again no evidence to support this other than reports or other case where bail was increased.

He has disregarded the fact, that if as he suggests sureties were already in place at committal stage and would have already been checked out why would there need to be a 48 hour delay in him being released.

He doesnt seem to want accept that no two cases were the same and what applied in one would not necessarily apply in another

So all in all where is this elusive evidence? to back up what he is suggesting there is none. he has done nothing other than put forward several scenarios based on his research into other cases, and has clearly not got his head round the grounds for a magistrate using his discretion with regards to granting bail before committal.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Batman]

Burden of proof is on...

I agree there, but as is stands we can only go on the balance of probabilities based on what is presented. I have no qualms about going head to head with David as an when he produces something to back up what he is suggesting happened because to date he has not.

He cannot prove that Tumbety was bailed on Nov 7 or any date thereafter before the committal.

He says Tumblety was bailed sometime between Nov 7-8 with sureties, But he cannot prove this.

He says that it would have only taken 24 hours to check out bail sureties following his Nov 7th appearance, but we know that it could have taken up to 48 hours.

He does however, accept that Tumblety was bailed on Nov 14th and does accept that he was not released until Nov 16th.

With regards to the 48 hour delay he suggests that was because he already had sureties in place as a result of his earlier bail with sureties, and that the delay was because the court wanted to increase the amounts and needed to be satisfied that the sureties were good for revised amounts- Again no evidence to support this other than reports or other case where bail was increased.

He has disregarded the fact, that if as he suggests sureties were already in place at committal stage and would have already been checked out why would there need to be a 48 hour delay in him being released.

He doesnt seem to want accept that no two cases were the same and what applied in one would not necessarily apply in another

So all in all where is this elusive evidence? to back up what he is suggesting there is none. he has done nothing other than put forward several scenarios based on his research into other cases, and has clearly not got his head round the grounds for a magistrate using his discretion with regards to granting bail before committal.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. The claim is that Tumblety was in Jail on Nov 9 and couldn't have killed MJK. A POSITIVE claim. That's it. Nothing more. Nothing less. You are distorting the original point by saying we have to prove a NEGATIVE*.

What the OP has done is to show that the proof people were using with references to the court records is their misunderstanding of the day to day running of the case. So their positive proof is not proof at all. Therefore the position that Tumblety was in jail on Nov 9 is baseless.

*We can prove a negative if its the claim being made, which this wasn't, but the negative is that there is no evidence of Tumblety being in prison for 9 Nov or he would have used it as a defence, which he did not. No one did and no contemporary investigator raised this point either. Judge discretion or not, this alone is fatal to the idea he was in jail at the time. All you can say is that he enjoyed being treated as JtR despite him disputing being called a criminal in his books/writings.

[Trevor Marriott]

The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. The claim is that Tumblety was in Jail on Nov 9 and couldn't have killed MJK. A POSITIVE claim. That's it. Nothing more. Nothing less. You are distorting the original point by saying we have to prove a NEGATIVE*.

What the OP has done is to show that the proof people were using with references to the court records is their misunderstanding of the day to day running of the case. So their positive proof is not proof at all. Therefore the position that Tumblety was in jail on Nov 9 is baseless.

*We can prove a negative if its the claim being made, which this wasn't, but the negative is that there is no evidence of Tumblety being in prison for 9 Nov or he would have used it as a defence, which he did not. No one did and no contemporary investigator raised this point either. Judge discretion or not, this alone is fatal to the idea he was in jail at the time. All you can say is that he enjoyed being treated as JtR despite him disputing being called a criminal in his books/writings.

Thank you for your input it has been duly noted