Cracking The Calendar Code

[Batman]

This has all been discussed many times before on here, and I do not intend to go over it all again. If you want to know the answer I would suggest reviewing old posts on the topic in question.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I think it would be far more economic to just to quote him with a copy and paste than to write something that is 100% synonymous with not knowing or having a clue.

In short, there is no evidence Tumblety used a defence that he was in jail at the time of the ripper murders, because he probably wasn't. If he was, this discussion would have ended in 1888.

[Chris]

its a shame you an Orsam and others do not fully understand how the legal system works and did work in 1888 if you did you might get a better grasp of all of this

It must be obvious to everyone that David has gone to enormous trouble to research exactly what the administrative procedures were and exactly how the calendars were compiled.

You're simply making yourself look ridiculous.

[Trevor Marriott]

Yet, whenever you were challenged, you always drew our attention on this forum to your favourite sentence in Douglas (1907 edition). We don't see that any more do we? Funny that. But it was all you had. And your happiness with your own conclusions is hardly a killer point.



There is no conjecture, theory or what ifs in anything I have posted. I have set out the legal procedure in respect of bail in 1888 and explained how the Calendar was compiled. All facts.



Baby steps. That is a good sign.



Are you ever going to tell us what that evidence is?

I have set it all out many times.

And what does the court calender tell us? It tells us that he was bailed two days after committal. Ths should ring the warning bells for a start

What does it not tell us? It does not tell us that he was bailed at any stage prior to the committal. It tells us that he was in custody from Nov 7th.

The reasons for the 7 day remand have also been ignored by you simply because you have no answer to them, and you have invented this theory that one or two people could have come forward at some stage to stand surety for him, and that initially one amount of bail was set and then it was changed again an in the interim period he was locked up for 2 days . All possible but in reality it didn't happen. It a ruse by you to keep Tumblety alive as a suspect.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

It must be obvious to everyone that David has gone to enormous trouble to research exactly what the administrative procedures were and exactly how the calendars were compiled.

You're simply making yourself look ridiculous.

Thats your opinion, and having regards to our previous hostile exchanges on other topics I don't expect you to agree with me for one minute.

Being ridiculous isn't a problem when you know your facts and how to interpret them correctly.

[Trevor Marriott]

I think it would be far more economic to just to quote him with a copy and paste than to write something that is 100% synonymous with not knowing or having a clue.

In short, there is no evidence Tumblety used a defence that he was in jail at the time of the ripper murders, because he probably wasn't. If he was, this discussion would have ended in 1888.

But where did it all emanate from? un reliable secondary newspaper articles !

[David Orsam]

You have not produced one piece of factual evidence which shows Tumblety was bailed before his committal.

I'm not advocating a positive case that he was. I have said it was possible that he was. Do you understand the difference?

You cant even prove he was sent to Holloway as you state

Up to May 1882 all prisoners on remand and awaiting trial in London were sent to Newgate. From then to April 1886 it was Clerkenwell. From May 1886 onwards and through the whole of 1888 it was Holloway. It's not relevant to the issues at stake but I thought you might be interested to know. You can believe me or not, it's up to you. If I ever feel the need to prove it I will.

[Batman]

no newspaper conspiracy theory

But where did it all emanate from? un reliable secondary newspaper articles !

Oh that old chestnut....
If a journalist got the scoop that Tumblety was in prison that would crush other newspapers trying to cover the story. Papers compete. You have a conspiracy involving newspapers refusing to report Tumblety claims of being in jail at the time of MJKs murder.

Let's face it, it wasn't reported because Tumblety never once made the claim. That means he was likely out and unable to use it as a defense.

[Chris]

Thats your opinion, and having regards to our previous hostile exchanges on other topics I don't expect you to agree with me for one minute.

Being ridiculous isn't a problem when you know your facts and how to interpret them correctly.

Why don't you do the sensible thing, just for once? Take a couple of days off posting, and take the time to read the tremendous amount of information David has provided, and have the courtesy to give it the proper consideration it deserves.

[Batman]

Why don't you do the sensible thing, just for once? Take a couple of days off posting, and take the time to read the tremendous amount of information David has provided, and have the courtesy to give it the proper consideration it deserves.

Yeah and its consistent with him being out.

[David Orsam]

Trevor I can't believe I am having to repeat myself again.

And what does the court calender tell us? It tells us that he was bailed two days after committal. Ths should ring the warning bells for a start

There are no warning bells to ring. That is because of the very real possibility of increased bail at committal which fully explains the two days.

What does it not tell us? It does not tell us that he was bailed at any stage prior to the committal. It tells us that he was in custody from Nov 7th.

At some length, I have explained why the Calendar would not include the information that Tumblety was bailed prior to committal considering that he was bailed after committal. It was not designed to include that information. It did not need to include that information. Therefore, the Calendar does not help us in any way in concluding whether Tumblety was (a) granted bail on 7 November and (b) released from prison between 8 and 14 November until his committal hearing.

The reasons for the 7 day remand have also been ignored by you simply because you have no answer to them

I already answered your point about a 7 day remand so why you accuse me of ignoring it is baffling. The reason for 7 days was simply to bring back the prisoner on the same day of the week to the same magistrate, while at the same time giving the police or prosecutor the maximum amount of time to collect evidence. But there could be a 1 day remand, a 2 day remand, a 3 day remand and so on up to a maximum of 8 days unless the prisoner was on bail when it could be longer. A 7 day remand could be a 7 day remand in custody, it could be a 7 day remand (with bail to be provided) or a 7 day remand while the prisoner was already on bail.

and you have invented this theory that one or two people could have come forward at some stage to stand surety for him, and that initially one amount of bail was set and then it was changed again an in the interim period he was locked up for 2 days . All possible but in reality it didn't happen. It a ruse by you to keep Tumblety alive as a suspect.

I just need to repeat your own words "All possible". Thank you. So it's not an invention of mine, it's something that was possible. You go on to say "but in reality it didn't happen" and we are still waiting for the evidence to prove that. And I have no interest whatsoever in keeping Tumblety alive as a suspect. I'm just telling you what could have happened.

[PaulB]

But where did it all emanate from? un reliable secondary newspaper articles !

What have you been told about newspaper reports?

[Mayerling]

I'm not advocating a positive case that he was. I have said it was possible that he was. Do you understand the difference?



Up to May 1882 all prisoners on remand and awaiting trial in London were sent to Newgate. From then to April 1886 it was Clerkenwell. From May 1886 onwards and through the whole of 1888 it was Holloway. It's not relevant to the issues at stake but I thought you might be interested to know. You can believe me or not, it's up to you. If I ever feel the need to prove it I will.

Hi David,

If I may break in for a moment, why was there this change from Newgate to Clerkenwell to Holloway between May 1882 and May 1886 regarding sending prisoners on remand and awaiting trial? Some bureaucratic advantage or was it prison repair work or what? This is just a small matter of curiosity to me.

Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

What have you been told about newspaper reports?

I think it was what you have been told about them,. As I recall your interpretation of secondary evidence sources was somewhat misguided.

And you dont need to remind me about secondary newspaper sources. For the purpose of this thread I was simply reminding the poster where the suggestion came from in the first instance that Tumblety had been arrested for the murders.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Batman]

And you dont need to remind me about secondary newspaper sources. For the purpose of this thread I was simply reminding the poster where the suggestion came from in the first instance that Tumblety had been arrested for the murders.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Nobody has brought up him being arrested for the murders but you right now.

Again, if you claim Tumblety was in jail, why didn't he use this to defend himself from accusations he was the Whitechapel murderer? It doesn't matter who first linked him to the Whitechapel murders. You say he was in jail giving him the PERFECT alibi but he somehow forget to mention this in his defense? You think its good enough to rule him out now but back then wasn't an important factor or something?

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor I can't believe I am having to repeat myself again.



There are no warning bells to ring. That is because of the very real possibility of increased bail at committal which fully explains the two days.



At some length, I have explained why the Calendar would not include the information that Tumblety was bailed prior to committal considering that he was bailed after committal. It was not designed to include that information. It did not need to include that information. Therefore, the Calendar does not help us in any way in concluding whether Tumblety was (a) granted bail on 7 November and (b) released from prison between 8 and 14 November until his committal hearing.



I already answered your point about a 7 day remand so why you accuse me of ignoring it is baffling. The reason for 7 days was simply to bring back the prisoner on the same day of the week to the same magistrate, while at the same time giving the police or prosecutor the maximum amount of time to collect evidence. But there could be a 1 day remand, a 2 day remand, a 3 day remand and so on up to a maximum of 8 days unless the prisoner was on bail when it could be longer. A 7 day remand could be a 7 day remand in custody, it could be a 7 day remand (with bail to be provided) or a 7 day remand while the prisoner was already on bail.



I just need to repeat your own words "All possible". Thank you. So it's not an invention of mine, it's something that was possible. You go on to say "but in reality it didn't happen" and we are still waiting for the evidence to prove that. And I have no interest whatsoever in keeping Tumblety alive as a suspect. I'm just telling you what could have happened.

Yes there are many scenarios that could have happened, which you have gone to great lengths to ask us to consider. But the known facts, and the court procedure as they have been presented, coupled with the court documentation and the newspaper article point to only one.

In the absence of conclusive proof to any scenario the balance of probabilities points heavily to him being in custody the night MJK was killed.

All you have done is thrown into the mix an assortment of scenarios, with not one piece of anything relative to Tumblety to support any of them

On a final note if you look at the whole page of the court calendar a document, which is paramount to these arguments, things should become clearer. You can see that there are a number of other defendants shown on that sheet with various entries relating to bail against there names.

Walter Wright (on bail)
Jane Levy (bailed at police court)
Arthur Cotleee (bailed at police court)
Francis Tumblety (bailed Nov 16th)
Henry Ginger bailed Nov 16th

Now to me, and I hope to everyone else who has sided with you, that suggests that he was not bailed as you suggest at the police court on Nov 7th if he had been I would have expected the entry in the court calendar relating to him to show that in line with the other entries. Or are you going to say the court made a clerical error in omitting that important fact, a fact you desperately need to prop up one of your scenarios.

I cannot post the entry because my copy is very poor but for the benefit of others perhaps you would be so kind so others can see what I am referring to.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk