Cracking The Calendar Code

[Chris]

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.

Please just take the time to read it properly, and then you will understand.

[PaulB]

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

Nope. Not worrying at all

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.

You seem to be learning a little about punctuation. Funny that. Anyway, it would not grieve me in the least if you were right about something. Unlike you, I am grateful when someone establishes the truth and accuracy about something, even if it was you. In this case, however, you are ducking and diving and doing your best to fight your corner, and good luck to you, you may be right, but at the moment you're wriggling like a fish on the end of a line. But you get back to the fray.

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

and you wont see them, because as I said the concerns were given to the court verbally along with the objections to bail.

[Trevor Marriott]

Nope. Not worrying at all



You seem to be learning a little about punctuation. Funny that. Anyway, it would not grieve me in the least if you were right about something. Unlike you, I am grateful when someone establishes the truth and accuracy about something, even if it was you. In this case, however, you are ducking and diving and doing your best to fight your corner, and good luck to you, you may be right, but at the moment you're wriggling like a fish on the end of a line. But you get back to the fray.

I have never wriggled on this issue, and I still stand firm on my interpretation of "all" the facts surrounding Tumbelety till the contrary can be proved conclusively.

[GUT]

and you wont see them, because as I said the concerns were given to the court verbally along with the objections to bail.

So it is just an opinion of what may have happened?

[PaulB]

I have never wriggled on this issue, and I still stand firm on my interpretation of "all" the facts surrounding Tumbelety till the contrary can be proved conclusively.

Of course you do. You would, wouldn't you. But you are wriggling and using every ploy you can think of to try and diminish David Orsam; being rude and insulting, diminishing him by calling him 'Orsam', likening anyone who agrees with him to sheep-like followers, and so on. I don't give a hoot where Tumblety was on November 9 (being in prison wouldn't absolve him of the other murders anyway), but David seems to be making a pretty solid case that Tumblety need not have been out of circulation. You are in dire need of rallying your facts and producing some solid argument rather than squirming because just right now you're not looking too good in this argument.

[Trevor Marriott]

So it is just an opinion of what may have happened?

Its the reality of how the judicial system worked in 1888 and the same criteria still applies today in courts.

It should also be noted that just because a prisoner is able to provide sureties it does not follow that a court will automatically grant bail.

As has previously been said no two cases are the same, and a court will consider each application for bail on its merits and the representations put before the court by the prosecution in opposing bail

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Of course you do. You would, wouldn't you. But you are wriggling and using every ploy you can think of to try and diminish David Orsam; being rude and insulting, diminishing him by calling him 'Orsam', likening anyone who agrees with him to sheep-like followers, and so on. I don't give a hoot where Tumblety was on November 9 (being in prison wouldn't absolve him of the other murders anyway), but David seems to be making a pretty solid case that Tumblety need not have been out of circulation. You are in dire need of rallying your facts and producing some solid argument rather than squirming because just right now you're not looking too good in this argument.

Than you for your unbiased opinion it is duly noted

[PaulB]

Than you for your unbiased opinion it is duly noted

Thank you for recognising and appreciating that, Trevor. It encourages me to offer it more often.

[Batman]

There is no cake

If you bake a cake that Tumblety has a literal cast iron alibi then you got to be prepared to eat a slice of it yourself, even if Tumblety has declined to ever try it.

Again America isn't Victorian London when it comes to the topic of same sex relations. So the idea Tumblety used accusations of being JtR to mask his true crime of having same sex relations is protecting him from something that doesn't even exist. Not to mention all the people who should have information about this cake but are also strangely silent about it.

A cast iron alibi is every defense attorneys idea of heaven and yet its completely absent here obviously because Tumblety wasn't in jail.

I don't even have a dog in this race like nearly everyone else here, maybe even all of them. Its clear of bias.

[David Orsam]

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

Hi Jeff - while I haven't specifically researched that point, my understanding is that by the 1880s Newgate was too small to cope with the increasing numbers of prisoners in London – probably too old and decrepit as well (and thus "not fit for purpose") – while Clerkenwell Prison closed down for good in the summer of 1886.

[David Orsam]

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.

As you have asked politely, I have posted the page you requested below. I was tempted not to bother because it does not assist in any way. I have already explained in the OP why a bail for Tumblety prior to 16 November 1888 would not appear in the Calendar, just as it does not for Henry George Ginger who was admitted to bail on 21 September 1888. It's not a question of a clerical error. Such prior bail does not get included. I thought I had been clear as to why this would have been the case – and Chris certainly understood it – so I can only politely request you to read my OP again carefully.

[David Orsam]

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.

Trevor, I note that you have set out a purported list of factors that would "preclude the granting of bail" without providing any source to show that it applied to magistrates in the 1880s, nor that it specifically related to issues to be considered before committal as opposed to after, nor that it related to issues to be considered in respect of misdemeanors, especially "petty" misdemeanors as set out in s.21 of the 1848 Act.

The magistrates in the 1880s were governed by the 1848 Indictable Offences Act which said no more than the magistrate "may" discharge a prisoner on remand upon a recognizance with or without sureties. It was entirely at their discretion and there was no list of matters that would preclude bail, let alone in respect of "petty" misdemeanours for which bail was compulsory after committal.

As it happens, I can easily demonstrate that your list is false.

From the Times of 16 March 1880:

"AT MARYLEBONE, DARIO SANCHEZ, 31, described as a native of Chili (sic), of no occupation, living at St James's Hotel, Picaccadilly, was brought up on a warrant by Police Sergeant, John Arnell, 1 D, before Mr De Rutzen, charged with taking one Mary Langley, an unmarried girl, under the age of 16 years, out of the possession and against the will of her father, contrary to statute....At this stage Mr De Rutzen said that, as he understood remand was to be asked for, he thought ample evidence had been given, and this would be a good point at which to adjourn the case. The case was accordingly adjourned, the magistrate agreeing to take bail for the prisoner's appearance - two sureties in £250 each and himself in £500, with 24 hours' notice to the police."

So there we have a foreign gentleman, who gave his address as a hotel - not what anyone would describe as a permanent fixed address (point 2 of your list) - charged with a misdemeanour (and a grave misdemeanour at that) being bailed on remand.

Perhaps you will come back and say he wasn't likely to abscond to avoid justice. Well he certainly was because - having found the bail - he took advantage of being at liberty and legged it.

From the Times of 25 March 1880:

"AT MARYLEBONE, DAVID SANCHEZ, 31, a native of Chili, described as of no occupation, living at St James's Hotel, Piccadilly, should yesterday have appeared in answer to his recognizances....Mr Crump [for the prisoner] said that as far as he was aware the prisoner would not appear....The imprisonment he had undergone had injured his health, and in view of the possibility of further imprisonment being inflicted on him he had left the country....Mr Sims asked for a warrant for his apprehension. Mr Cooke said that the prisoner's bail would be forfeited and a warrant for his arrest issued."

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jeff,

By 1888 Newgate was no longer a full-time prison. Adjacent to the Central Criminal Court, it was being used as a temporary house of detention for prisoners awaiting trial during the periods the Old Bailey was sitting.

Until its demolition in late 1890, Clerkenwell House of Detention housed remand prisoners from Middlesex police courts.

Tumblety was transferred from Clerkenwell to Newgate on the issuance of his trial warrant [Wednesday 14th November 1888], and it was from Newgate that he was bailed on Friday 16th November 1888.

Holloway became a remand prison in 1891.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

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

No, it could not. I have explained why in the OP.

And to clarify. I have said that Tumblety was probably granted bail on 7 November but he obviously wasn't released on bail on that day because he went to prison. The Calendar would never include information relating to the mere granting of bail. As we now know, it was possible for Tumblety to have been released on bail on 8 November. However, in such circumstances, the fact that he went back to prison after committal and was then released on bail again on 16 November would have superseded the previous bail when it came to compiling the Calendar.

The Calendar did not include the prisoner's entire bail history because there was no need for the judge to know it. It only included the bail position at the time the Before Trial Calendar was printed shortly before the trial. As I have said, there are no double bail entries in the Calendar in respect of bail prior to trial.