Cracking The Calendar Code

[Trevor Marriott]

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?

Excuse me, but it was in fact you earlier today that mentioned this in the first instance not me. Have you been back and re read some of the many posts on an earlier thread on this very same topic. No, I bet you haven't, yet you sit here blustering away, expecting others to answer questions you cant be bothered to look up yourself.

[Chris]

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.

It may suggest that to people who - apparently like you - haven't even bothered to read the information David provided. To those of us who have, of course it doesn't.

For that matter, it doesn't suggest that to anyone who can be bothered to read the information about Henry George Ginger, which was posted by Dr Fell seven years ago, has been pointed out to you countless times since, and which I posted a link to yet again yesterday:

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=4529&postcount=48

It really is enough to try the patience of a saint.

[Trevor Marriott]

It may suggest that to people who - apparently like you - haven't even bothered to read the information David provided. To those of us who have, of course it doesn't.

For that matter, it doesn't suggest that to anyone who can be bothered to read the information about Henry George Ginger, which was posted by Dr Fell seven years ago, has been pointed out to you countless times since, and which I posted a link to yet again yesterday:

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=4529&postcount=48

It really is enough to try the patience of a saint.

No two cases are the same, what applies to one will not necessary apply to the other because the antecedents of each prisoner are different, the charges are very often different in each case, and that will affect decisions a court will make appertaining to the granting of bail.

Let me go over again what would preclude the granting of bail before committal in Tumbletys case

1. Likely to abscond to avoid justice

2. No permanent fixed address

3. No assets in this country

4. Likely to commit further offences

5. Ongoing enquiries into other like offences

6. Likely to interfere with witnesses (this is why bail was not normally granted
before committal)

Now I accept that 1.4.6 would still be of a concern even after bail was granted but of course with the large amounts involved with the sureties the court decided that was sufficient to guarantee his appearance at his trial.

[Chris]

No two cases are the same, what applies to one will not necessary apply to the other because the antecedents of each prisoner are different, the charges are very often different in each case, and that will affect decisions a court will make appertaining to the granting of bail.

None of which has the slightest relevance to your assertion that if Tumblety had been bailed "I would have expected the entry in the court calendar relating to him to show that." That's what has been demonstrated to be baseless. Because the calendar only indicated whether or not the defendant had been bailed by the time the case came to be tried.

Everyone can reach their own conclusion about the likelihood of Tumblety being bailed before committal. That's a matter of opinion. But clearly there would be no legal difficulty in his being bailed, and no reason to expect the calendar to record the fact.

[GUT]

No two cases are the same, what applies to one will not necessary apply to the other because the antecedents of each prisoner are different, the charges are very often different in each case, and that will affect decisions a court will make appertaining to the granting of bail.

Let me go over again what would preclude the granting of bail before committal in Tumbletys case

1. Likely to abscond to avoid justice

2. No permanent fixed address

3. No assets in this country

4. Likely to commit further offences

5. Ongoing enquiries into other like offences

6. Likely to interfere with witnesses (this is why bail was not normally granted
before committal)

Now I accept that 1.4.6 would still be of a concern even after bail was granted but of course with the large amounts involved with the sureties the court decided that was sufficient to guarantee his appearance at his trial.

G'day Trevor

Can you give me evidence that the police believed 1, 4 or 6 and the ongong enquries were taking place into other offences.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Batman,

Tumblety dined out on the bogus Ripper story to deflect US press attention from the real reason for his arrest on eight charges involved with homosexual gross indecency.

The US press believed/had been told he was arrested on the 16th/17th/18th/19th November [accounts vary]. If he had told them he had been on remand in the Clerkenwell House of Detention on 9th November, the day of the Millers Court murder, he could never have got away with peddling the Ripper story which, if I recall correctly, was all down to him having worn a slouch hat in Whitechapel, a story he appropriated from Sir George Compton Archibald Arthur.

Regards,

Simon

[mklhawley]

Hi Batman,

Tumblety dined out on the bogus Ripper story to deflect US press attention from the real reason for his arrest on eight charges involved with homosexual gross indecency.

The US press believed/had been told he was arrested on the 16th/17th/18th/19th November [accounts vary]. If he had told them he had been on remand in the Clerkenwell House of Detention on 9th November, the day of the Millers Court murder, he could never have got away with peddling the Ripper story which, if I recall correctly, was all down to him having worn a slouch hat in Whitechapel, a story he appropriated from Sir George Compton Archibald Arthur.

Regards,

Simon

So, I go on vacation for a week and find out David clarified things for everyone except those who've published to the contrary.

Simon, so Tumblety duped not only the World's London correspondent, he duped the London correspondents of the World's competitors, the Times, Herald, the Sun, even the Boston Herald. He also duped the Associated Press' London correspondent who spearheaded the Tumblety jumping bail story! Oh yah, he even duped the police, especially Assistant Commissioner Anderson AND Chief Inspector Littelchild. Good job FT. Oh, none of them would have attempted to corroborate Tumblety's story would they.

For your paragraph two, you'll have to wait for my article.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mike,

Awesome has clarified nothing.

I await your article with bated breath.

Regards,

Simon

[Trevor Marriott]

G'day Trevor

Can you give me evidence that the police believed 1, 4 or 6 and the ongong enquries were taking place into other offences.

The evidence would have been verbal evidence given either by the police to the magistrate or as likely as not those concerns given to the magistrate by the crown prosecutor on nov 7 when he made his first court appearance

[Trevor Marriott]

None of which has the slightest relevance to your assertion that if Tumblety had been bailed "I would have expected the entry in the court calendar relating to him to show that." That's what has been demonstrated to be baseless. Because the calendar only indicated whether or not the defendant had been bailed by the time the case came to be tried.

Everyone can reach their own conclusion about the likelihood of Tumblety being bailed before committal. That's a matter of opinion. But clearly there would be no legal difficulty in his being bailed, and no reason to expect the calendar to record the fact.

But the whole issue is according to orsam is that tumblety could have been bailed on nov 7th at the police court

Had that have happened the calendar would have shown that was the case with others who were bailed from the police court

[PaulB]

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.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No, Trevor, your recollection is incorrect. Go back and read the thread where several people took the trouble to explain that you were wrong, as you are over so many things. I know the difference between primary and secondary sources and I also know that although they are problematic, newspapers are primary sources. You were the one who was ignorant of what primary sources are. It would therefore seem that it is necessary for you to be reminded, whatever your purpose is mentioning the topic may be. Anyway, David Orsam seems to have you ducking and diving enough over the law without you having to worry about primary and secondary sources.

[Chris]

But the whole issue is according to orsam is that tumblety could have been bailed on nov 7th at the police court

Had that have happened the calendar would have shown that was the case with others who were bailed from the police court

Actually, David says explicitly that the calendar implies he wasn't bailed at the police court!

And who are the "others" you are talking about? David says, "despite examining the Calendars throughout the 1880s, I have not found a single example of a double bail entry in the Calendar for a prisoner prior to committal." Do you know of one?

[Trevor Marriott]

No, Trevor, your recollection is incorrect. Go back and read the thread where several people took the trouble to explain that you were wrong, as you are over so many things. I know the difference between primary and secondary sources and I also know that although they are problematic, newspapers are primary sources. You were the one who was ignorant of what primary sources are. It would therefore seem that it is necessary for you to be reminded, whatever your purpose is mentioning the topic may be. Anyway, David Orsam seems to have you ducking and diving enough over the law without you having to worry about primary and secondary sources.

I am not worrying about primary and secondary sources but it seems you are.

And as to Orsam having me ducking and diving I think that's what you would like to believe, because it would grieve you personally to think I was right about something and you were wrong.

[Trevor Marriott]

Actually, David says explicitly that the calendar implies he wasn't bailed at the police court!

And who are the "others" you are talking about? David says, "despite examining the Calendars throughout the 1880s, I have not found a single example of a double bail entry in the Calendar for a prisoner prior to committal." Do you know of one?

Well Orsam best make up his mind exactly what he is saying then. because he is clearly pulling the wool over your eyes and the eyes of others.

[GUT]

The evidence would have been verbal evidence given either by the police to the magistrate or as likely as not those concerns given to the magistrate by the crown prosecutor on nov 7 when he made his first court appearance

Well please shoe me where the police said those things to the magistrate or the Crown Prosecutor on Nov 7, I've never seen them.