Cracking The Calendar Code

[Trevor Marriott]

As you know, Douglas said no such thing.

Well if you want to be politically correct

"The generally received impression appears to be that the right of bail in misdemeanor does not arise until committal for trial.”

[GUT]

No prisoner wants to spend time in custody but if you break the law then that is exactly what happens. Its not a question of whether he would have wanted to or not, he never had a choice. I bet he never expected to get his collar felt in the first instance, So to say what you said is a ridiculous comment

No Trevor the ridiculous comment is

if you break the law then that is exactly what happens

100s or even 1000s of people break the law every week and spend NO time in gaol.

[Chris]

Well if you want to be politically correct

"The generally received impression appears to be that the right of bail in misdemeanor does not arise until committal for trial.”

Absolutely unbelievable.

Please just read what has been explained to you about this, and for your own good get someone to explain it to you if you genuinely still don't understand it. You simply can't expect people here to spend days and weeks trying to help you while you continually fling insults at them.

[Trevor Marriott]

Absolutely unbelievable.

Please just read what has been explained to you about this, and for your own good get someone to explain it to you if you genuinely still don't understand it. You simply can't expect people here to spend days and weeks trying to help you while you continually fling insults at them.

Its not me that needs the help, what I have suggested does not need days and weeks to understand if anything the lengthy posts by David do. And I have not flung any insults.

What I have said is that Tumblety could not have been bailed prior to his committal. You keep banging on about bail was automatic after committal. That is not an issue, its what happened to him between Nov 7th-14th that matters. What happened between those dates has an impact on what then happened then between Nov14-16.

I will ask you the same question i asked him which he hasnt yet answered.

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 ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Chris]

What I have said is that Tumblety could not have been bailed prior to his committal. You keep banging on about bail was automatic after committal.

God give me strength!

The reason we keep coming back to automatic bail after committal is because time and time again you keep quoting Douglas's statement about automatic bail after committal, no matter how many times it's explained to you what it means.

Yes, Douglas's statement is irrelevant. So please stop quoting it. Preferably, please stop posting altogether until you have read and understood David's posts. Because at the moment you are just wasting your own time and everyone else's.

[Chris]

I will ask you the same question i asked him which he hasnt yet answered.

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 ?

As for that, David did answer that question. Why don't you stop posting all this nonsense and read what people have said to you?

[Batman]

Tumblety carried diamonds in his pocket. Wore gold. Was robbed one time of thousands of dollars worth of stuff. The idea this man couldn't get himself out of jail on bail at the earliest possibility, which is not 48hrs, but hours, for a victimless crime of this type is slim to negligible. He has everything available to him to get out and did so.

Has anyone found anything remotely like Tumblety or anyone else in the contemporary claiming he was in jail at the time of MJKs murder? No. Not a particle of anything to support that view. Nothing. Nothing from anybody.

We can simply dismiss this idea he was in jail at the time of the murder of MJK.

Which is fully supported by the OP here.

[Stewart P Evans]

Excellent

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

However, it has also been mentioned that had Tumblety been in custody on the date of the Kelly murder he would surely have used that fact to dismiss the idea that he was the Ripper. Well, we need look no further than the press interview with Tumblety that was published in the New York World of January 29, 1889. An occasion when it was put to Tumblety that he was indeed a Whitechapel suspect and that he was accused of being Jack the Ripper. The fact that he was accused of homosexual activity was, at this time, public property and had been published in many newspapers. He would have no need to mention the indecency charges as the interview was all about his arrest as a Ripper suspect and, if he was in custody on November 9, he merely had to state the fact to dismiss the Ripper accusation. The fact is that he did not.

The report opens thus - 'Dr. Francis Tumblety, the celebrated Whitechapel suspect, after two months of silence has given his version of why he was accused of being Jack the Ripper. He says it was owing to the stupidity of the London Police, who arrested him because he was an American and wore a slouch hat...'

The article is well worth examination and analysis. However, the fact of his detention was put to him, giving ample opportunity for his to state that he was still in custody at the time of the last murder. He did not state this.

Interviewer - "How long were you in prison?"
Tumblety - "Two or three days; but I don't care to talk about it. When I think of the way I was treated in London it makes me lose all control of myself. It was shameful, horrible." It would have been very easy, here, for Tumblety to state that he was not the murderer as he was locked up at the time of the last, and most sensational, murder. As has been pointed out in this thread, he never used this excuse.

[Trevor Marriott]

God give me strength!

The reason we keep coming back to automatic bail after committal is because time and time again you keep quoting Douglas's statement about automatic bail after committal, no matter how many times it's explained to you what it means.

Yes, Douglas's statement is irrelevant. So please stop quoting it. Preferably, please stop posting altogether until you have read and understood David's posts. Because at the moment you are just wasting your own time and everyone else's.

Its not irrelevant because he says that bail was not normally granted on misdemeanors until after committal.

"The generally received impression appears to be that the right of bail in misdemeanor does not arise until committal for trial.” now he was in a position circa 1907 to have more knowledge about this than we do 126 years later

Let me make my position clear on this. I have never said that bail was automatic after committal. I have said that Tumblety was remanded in custody n Nov 7th and bailed with sureties after his committal on Nov 14th when he offered up two sureties, which took the authorities up to 48 hours to check them out before he was bailed.

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

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.

I would appreciate you answer to my previous question if you have one, as to what would have made a magistrate use his discretion and not bail someone before committal?





.

[Trevor Marriott]

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

However, it has also been mentioned that had Tumblety been in custody on the date of the Kelly murder he would surely have used that fact to dismiss the idea that he was the Ripper. Well, we need look no further than the press interview with Tumblety that was published in the New York World of January 29, 1889. An occasion when it was put to Tumblety that he was indeed a Whitechapel suspect and that he was accused of being Jack the Ripper. The fact that he was accused of homosexual activity was, at this time, public property and had been published in many newspapers. He would have no need to mention the indecency charges as the interview was all about his arrest as a Ripper suspect and, if he was in custody on November 9, he merely had to state the fact to dismiss the Ripper accusation. The fact is that he did not.

The report opens thus - 'Dr. Francis Tumblety, the celebrated Whitechapel suspect, after two months of silence has given his version of why he was accused of being Jack the Ripper. He says it was owing to the stupidity of the London Police, who arrested him because he was an American and wore a slouch hat...'

The article is well worth examination and analysis. However, the fact of his detention was put to him, giving ample opportunity for his to state that he was still in custody at the time of the last murder. He did not state this.

Interviewer - "How long were you in prison?"
Tumblety - "Two or three days; but I don't care to talk about it. When I think of the way I was treated in London it makes me lose all control of myself. It was shameful, horrible." It would have been very easy, here, for Tumblety to state that he was not the murderer as he was locked up at the time of the last, and most sensational, murder. As has been pointed out in this thread, he never used this excuse.

and how do you explain the two or three days ? surely he would have known whether it was two or three? Perhaps he was happy to go with the flow that he was looked on as a suspect, I have no doubt someone like him would have thrived on this kind of false notoriety

I suggest we forget about paper talk and stick to the known facts they are more accurate

[GUT]

and how do you explain the two or three days ? surely he would have known whether it was two or three? Perhaps he was happy to go with the flow that he was looked on as a suspect, I have no doubt someone like him would have thrived on this kind of false notoriety

I suggest we forget about paper talk and stick to the known facts they are more accurate

Gee I thought you were quoting papers a few posts back. Or is that only when you think they support your argument.

[GUT]

and how do you explain the two or three days ? surely he would have known whether it was two or three? Perhaps he was happy to go with the flow that he was looked on as a suspect, I have no doubt someone like him would have thrived on this kind of false notoriety

I suggest we forget about paper talk and stick to the known facts they are more accurate

Funny though that two or three days - 1 day to get sureties vetted on 7th and 1-2 (24 to 48 hrs) days on committal

[Trevor Marriott]

Gee I thought you were quoting papers a few posts back. Or is that only when you think they support your argument.

Newspaper articles in this case are mostly secondary and not to be totally relied on. However in this case what is contained in the article which suggests he was bailed after committal is corroborated by a primary source so it might be fair to say that the content of that article which stated he was only bailed after committal is reliable .

[GUT]

Newspaper articles in this case are mostly secondary and not to be totally relied on. However in this case what is contained in the article which suggests he was bailed after committal is corroborated by a primary source so it might be fair to say that the content of that article which stated he was only bailed after committal is reliable .

Trevor this must be at least the 1000th time, but it seems to be a waste of time, Newspapers are PRIMARY sources, always are.

[Trevor Marriott]

Funny though that two or three days - 1 day to get sureties vetted on 7th and 1-2 (24 to 48 hrs) days on committal

But if he alreday had sureties in place there would have been no need to lock him up after committal, The sureties would have to have attended on Nov 14th they would already have been checked out.

The question of upping the bail based on this is another smokescreen. One simple question to the sureties on the day "Are you able to accommodate an increase"? but of course we have no evidence to support that do we other than conjecture. Another ploy to suggest he was bailed before committal