Cracking The Calendar Code

[John G]

Hi Trevor,

Thank you for your detailed reply. For clarification, isn't the case that s38 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, which you cite, governs police bail where there has been an arrest without warrant? My understanding is that under this provision bail had to be granted, even for a none serious felony, unless the accused could be brought before the magistrates, i.e Police Court, within 24 hours. However, as we know this issue didn't arise as Tumblety was brought before the Police Court within the time limit, i.e 7th November.

[David Orsam]

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

Hi Simon - you seem to have gone drastically off topic in this thread. Naturally, I understand why and don't blame you at all.

[David Orsam]

In support of what I suggest I refer to Douglas, and I refer to the newspaper article. In addition there is corroboration as fact, because we know he was committed on Nov 14 and bailed on Nov 16th with two sureties

None of those three things helps you Trevor.

1. Douglas you have simply misunderstood - which is quite obvious to everyone but you.

2. The newspaper article does not even touch on whether Tumblety was bailed on remand or not. It is useless in respect of this issue. If anything, the fact that Tumblety hardly knew the sureties that he used after his committal hearing provides a good reason why they were not the first people he asked to stand bail for him on 7 November and why he only used them after his bail was increased to an amount that his original sureties could not afford. I don't offer this as a positive point btw, just showing you that the newspaper article that you now seem to cling to doesn't offer you any help at all.

3. The fact that he was committed on 14 Nov and bailed on 16 Nov with two sureties is in no way inconsistent with the notion that he was bailed on remand on 7/8 November. It has all been explained.

[David Orsam]

There are no examples or court records I can produce simply because no two case are the same, no two prisoners antecedents are the same, and that is why the courts had a discretion as whether or not to bail a person before committal, whether it be for a petty misdemeanor or an indictable misdemeanor.

You are being asked to provide examples, or even an example, of someone charged with a petty misdemeanor being refused bail (having applied for it). While I don't think you would be able to find such a thing in any court records in any event - because that type of information is not included - you should, if such examples existed, be able to find them in newspaper reports. And good luck to you sir in the search.

If you look at S38 it says that bail must be granted unless the person is not known, or may escape (abscond) that is only in relation to petty misdemeanors triable at a magistrates court. Tumblety`s charges were not petty misdemeanors they were indictable misdemeanors. So of course the court would have had concerns about the likelihood of Tumbley absconding at the earliest opportunity, and those concerns were realised when he did just that as soon as he got bail. Had he got bail before then he would have gone before and not stayed around to see how strong the evidence was against him, he would already have known that by the fact he had done the dirty deeds.

Why on earth are you referring to Section 38 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act? That act has no application to a magistrate's decision as to bail. It only touches on police bail. And I distinctly recall asking you to read carefully (and then read it again) my post in which I told that you the petty misdemeanors triable at a magistrates court were not the petty misdemeanors I was referring to. I was referring only to indictable offences.

Having been involved in may committals at court over the years involving these same issues I like to think that I have a heads up on most on here. Despite being told by some that I don't know what I am talking about. David has looked at this from a text book exercise and not how things worked from a practical perspective

Unfortunately, as I have already mentioned but (surprise, surprise) you evidently did not read (or understand), your personal knowledge of bail and committals will not only not help you in deciphering what happened in 1888 but it will positively mislead you to the wrong conclusion. The relevant sections of the Indictable Offences Act were repealed by the Magistrate's Courts Act of 1952 so any involvement in bail applications after this date is worthless. You need to understand the procedures as they were in 1888 because they were completely different to the post-1952 world. And, for the record, I did not just look at this as a "text book exercise", I looked at a large number of actual reported remand and committal hearings in the newspapers of the period. If you don't do this yourself Trevor, then you will never have sufficient knowledge of court procedure in 1888.

But the reality is that he wasn't bailed until his committal

The actual reality is that you don't know this and have not provided a single iota of evidence to support such a claim, which leads to the obvious conclusion that you are not able to look at this topic with any degree of objectivity.

[Simon Wood]

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

[David Orsam]

Further corroboration as to why he would have been remanded in custody base on his flight risk before committal etc comes via S38 " must be bailed provided that they are well known and not likely to escape plus the other reasons previously mentioned.

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.

[Hercule Poirot]

Hi Hercule,

Nobody is denying the existence of legal procedures.

What has been wrongly proposed is a legal procedure predicated on the proposition that Tumblety had been arrested on suspicion of being Jack the Ripper, someone who plainly did not exist.

Regards,

Simon

Sorry but the charges related to the explanation David gave were indecency offenses and not murders. I'm aware that some consider that he was charged with misdemeanors in order to keep Tumblety at view until murder charges could have been set. But that's a different story, plausible but not proven and involving a different set of legal rules and procedures.

[David Orsam]

Yes he has attempted to answer the question but again has sidestepped the issue by not being able to understand and has suggested reasons which are not in line with what a magistrate has to decide on what he says

1. He was not legally represented and did not know he was entitled.

2. He was broke – all his friends were poor – and he knew he would never be able to find bail either in himself of with sureties so did not bother.

3. He was happy to go to prison because his life was so miserable.

These are from Tumblety the decsion would not be of his making it would be the courts

David then says "there may be other reasons. None of the above would be considered worthy of a court not granting bail before committal" So now he is agreeing that bail was only given before committal at the discretion of the magistrates and i have clearly shown what the criteria would have been for the magistrate to decide on

As Chris has pointed out, you have misquoted me, wrapping quotation marks around one of your own sentences. I'm sure this was not done deliberately but what IS objectionable is the fact that you are criticising me for answering the exact question that you asked me.

Your question, in your own words, was "what were the circumstances which would have led to prisoners being remanded in custody until after committal?" You did not ask me the circumstances under which a court would not grant bail. They are two different things because the question I answered (i.e. the one you asked) potentially involved the magistrate not being asked to consider the question of bail (and thus never actually refusing it). I wouldn't mind but in the preamble to my answer I spelt this all out and said they were two different questions. I made very clear what question I was answering. I don't even know why I'm bothering to type all this out because you certainly won't understand the distinction.

The main reasons I say why a court would not give bail to someone like Tumbety before committal are

1. Likely to abscond
2. No permanent residence in UK
3. No assests in the UK to enable him to be bailed in his own recognizance
4. Likely to commit further offences
5. Likely to interfere with witnesses

As you accepted yesterday, this is a list which you have invented based on "common sense" as opposed to any knowledge of procedure in 1888. The primary consideration for a magistrate when considering bail for which he had discretion to refuse was whether the accused would take his trial. But in almost every case in practice this only applied to larceny offences because, as I have said many, many, times now, bail was automatic for certain misdemeanours (I won't use the phrase "petty misdemeanours" because it seems to be confusing you) including indecency offences. Thus, the question of whether Tumblety would take his trial would not have been a consideration for the magistrate on 7 November because Tumblety was ALWAYS going to granted bail at the committal hearing in any event.

And then David concludes by saying

So it is perfectly possible, and certainly did happen, for persons charged with petty misdemeanors to end up in prison until their committal and after their committal. So why not Tumblety ?

I do wonder if you read even a single sentence of my two long posts. I said very clearly that Tumblety could have been in prison for the whole week between 7 and 14 November. But that is a far cry from your claim - which I was challenging - that the legal procedures in 1888 meant that Tumblety must have been in prison for that whole week. A claim which, it is evident to me from the responses of other members of the forum, now has the deserved status of a JTR myth.

[John G]

Hi Hercule,

Nobody is denying the existence of legal procedures.

What has been wrongly proposed is a legal procedure predicated on the proposition that Tumblety had been arrested on suspicion of being Jack the Ripper, someone who plainly did not exist.

Regards,

Simon

I believe that in all probability the same person killed the C5 plus Tabram, however, I agree that in all probability he didn't refer to himself as Jack the Ripper and probably not Tumblety either!

[Simon Wood]

Hi Hercule,

Nobody is denying the existence of legal procedures.

What has been wrongly proposed is a legal procedure predicated on the proposition that Tumblety had been arrested on suspicion of being Jack the Ripper, someone who plainly did not exist.

Regards,

Simon

[Hercule Poirot]

Bonjour Hercule,

What makes you so certain Jack the Ripper existed, when all we have to go on is a century-and-a-quarter of assorted BS?

Au revoir,

Simon

To tell you the truth, it doesn't matter to me if the Ripper existed or not. Legend, myth or reality offered me enough material to write a fiction novel to be published soon I hope. I'm not an historian nor a researcher although very much interested in world history and leave it to the experts.

I however am quite familiar with legal terms and could easily understand what David explained. Now whoever may have been arrested on November 7 (Tumblety or Santa Claus) could have legally bailed out within 24 hours regardless of perceived intent to abscond anyone else could have had, the importance of the sureties making it less likely.

[David Orsam]

It is you that is muddled, yes it did take Ginger only 24 hours but by the same token it took 48 hours for Tumblety so you cannot say 24 hours was the accepted time period for checking sureties. Those facts speak for themselves and I said "Up to 48 hours"

I never used the expression "accepted time period". With Douglas as my source, I said that 24 hours was the "usual" notice period. That is what Douglas says. Clear as crystal. You twisting it into "up to 48 hours" is a form of denial of the clear statement of Douglas that the usual notice period was 24 hours, only sometimes 48.

And what was Tumblety doing for those 48 hours between committal and bail?

Sitting in prison mainly I guess. Quite possibly doing his best from prison, with the assistance of his solicitor, to find two individuals to stand bail for him after the magistrate increased it at his committal hearing. Unfortunately, there is no evidence to help us on this, so both you and I can only guess.

Douglas also said that as a rule bail was only granted after committal so in one breath you want to use what he says to prop up your theory and in the next breath you try to say he was wrong to prove me wrong

Douglas did not say that "as a rule bail was only granted after committal" or anything like it. I know that you have always misunderstood Douglas, which is why you got it all so wrong in the past, but there is no excuse for you to continue with this remarkable misinterpretation.

[David Orsam]

David has presented an excellent forensic dissertation on the subject of bail in 1888 and one which I could not hope to emulate.

Thank you Stewart.

[David Orsam]

Hello David,

Sorry if I appear confused but as I understand the situation Tumblety appeared at the Police Court on the 7th November and was then remanded into custody. However, presumably this was not the same as a committal hearing, where the magistrates would then determine if he should be discharged or if there was sufficient weight of evidence against him to commit for trial (the equivalent of grand jury proceedings). Is it possible he could then have had an immediate committal hearing- at which point, after being committed for trial, bail could be considered- after being remanded into custody by the Police Court? Could the Police Court undertake the committal hearing?

And, if I have understood you correctly, the Police Court, prior to the committal hearing, could remand a prisoner with or without bail but that bail was usually always granted. Therefore, as the Police Court hearing was on the 7th it is likely he was bailed on or near to that date.

Hi John,

Your final paragraph states the position correctly. For Tumblety to have been at liberty on 9 November there are two possibilities:

1. At the remand hearing on 7 November, the magistrate granted Tumblety bail but he could not find the sureties (or the bail required in himself) on that day OR he could find the sureties but the magistrate required 24 hours' notice to the police before the bail would be accepted. In both scenarios, when the Police Court closed, Tumblety would have been transferred in a van from Marlborough Street Police Court to Holloway prison from where he could have been bailed by the Prison Governor on 8 November, thus being at liberty (but not necessarily murdering anyone) on 9 November.

2. At the remand hearing on 7 November, Tumblety was remanded into custody until the following day (8 November) when, at Marlborough Police Court, there was a second remand hearing at the end of which he was bailed in his own recognizances (no sureties required) or with sureties who were in attendance in court. Thus he walked free from the magistrate's court.

Both are possible. We do not have sufficient information to say if either did in fact happen.

I don't fully understand your first question. A prisoner could have been committed at his first remand hearing but we know this was not the case for Tumblety because the Warrant of Committal was made out on 14 November 1888 (so that we know that this was the date of his committal hearing). The committal hearing was at Marlborough Street Police Court, the magistrate was Mr Hannay.

[Hercule Poirot]

Bonjour Hercule,

Jack the Ripper did not exist, so what need is there for Trevor to consider David's position?

Au revoir,

Simon

If in Trevor's mind Jack the Ripper did not exist, of course he doesn't.

Denying the existence of the Ripper is one thing which in theory is acceptable but denying the existence of legal procedures regarding bails or even admitting that what has been factually explained about them is wright is something else.