Cracking The Calendar Code

[Trevor Marriott]

What I wrote was perfectly clear:
(1) At committal, for a certain class of misdemeanours there was an automatic right to bail.
(3) Before committal, bail was at the discretion of the magistrate.

watch this space !

[Trevor Marriott]

And for the 999th time, at least so is a newspaper.

So on that basis you accept that the newspaper article stating Tumblety was not bailed until after committal is correct?

[Chris]

watch this space !

If that meant you were going to address the substantive issues, it would be good news.

But given the torrent of muddle and confusion you've produced on these issues so far, it's difficult to be optimistic.

[Trevor Marriott]

If that meant you were going to address the substantive issues, it would be good news.

But given the torrent of muddle and confusion you've produced on these issues so far, it's difficult to be optimistic.

I think I am clear as I am sure are many others.

[PaulB]

So on that basis you accept that the newspaper article stating Tumblety was not bailed until after committal is correct?

Sorry, Trevor, but why would accepting that a newspaper is a primary source be the basis for accepting that Tumblety was not bailed until after committal is correct?

[Trevor Marriott]

If that meant you were going to address the substantive issues, it would be good news.

But given the torrent of muddle and confusion you've produced on these issues so far, it's difficult to be optimistic.

I think this is possibly where our self proclaimed legal eagle has got hold of the facts wrong. He has become confused over summary and indictable cases when he talks about bail and the different misdemeanors

This relates to petty misdemeanors triable at a magistrates court only

Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, s. 38, and the Police Acts, admit to bail, with or without sureties, persons charged with any petty misdemeanor for which they are liable to be summarily convicted by a Magistrate—such as drunkenness, assault, disorderly conduct, carelessly doing any hurt or damage, &c.

Persons who are in custody without warrant for any trifling offence, even light felonies, and cannot be taken before a Magistrate within 24 hours must be bailed provided that they are well known and not likely to escape ( this is where discrettion prevails? and reasons for not granting bail as I previoulsy stated.

Tumblety offences were triable only on indictment and not by the magistrates so the automatic bail did not apply, and he could have been kept in custody.

Add to that when he first appeared on Nov 7th the court at that time was not in position to commit him there and then the following would have applied

"If the investigation before the magistrate cannot be completed at a single hearing, he may from time to time remand the accused to gaol for any period not exceeding eight days; or may allow him his liberty in the interval upon his entering into recognizance’s, with or without sureties, for reappearance"

Here we have the 7 day remand in custody procedure couples with all the objections to bail previously mentioned.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Chris]

I think this is possibly where our self proclaimed legal eagle has got hold of the facts wrong. He has become confused over summary and indictable cases when he talks about bail and the different misdemeanors
...
Tumblety offences were triable only on indictment and not by the magistrates so the automatic bail did not apply, and he could have been kept in custody.

Read the post:

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=336430&postcount=1

[mklhawley]

yes in this case it is corroborated by an official document which is the primary source

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Except you didn't do that in the case of your complete acceptance of the Sir George Arthur incident (absolutely no corroboration), which was reported by the very same World London correspondent who broke the Tumblety arrested on suspicion story.

ok.

Mike

[Batman]

yes in this case it is corroborated by an official document which is the primary source

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

What isn't corroborated is the speculation that Tumblety was in prison at the time of MJKs murder.

The best alibi claim is simply unfounded because,

1. The Calendar doesn't directly infer incarceration at all.
2. Legally there is nothing special about why Tumblety, like everyone else, couldn't acquire bail.
3. There is nothing special about why Tumblety should be slow in providing security. He was a wealthy man. He could pay his way out with ease.
4. If he was in prison he would have used this to publically defend himself from accusations he was JtR.
5. The press don't mention him being in jail for the time period.
6. The investigators don't either.
7. The only people who mention it are modern researchers who are committed to another suspect.

[Trevor Marriott]

What isn't corroborated is the speculation that Tumblety was in prison at the time of MJKs murder.

The best alibi claim is simply unfounded because,

1. The Calendar doesn't directly infer incarceration at all.
2. Legally there is nothing special about why Tumblety, like everyone else, couldn't acquire bail.
3. There is nothing special about why Tumblety should be slow in providing security. He was a wealthy man. He could pay his way out with ease.
4. If he was in prison he would have used this to publically defend himself from accusations he was JtR.
5. The press don't mention him being in jail for the time period.
6. The investigators don't either.
7. The only people who mention it are modern researchers who are committed to another suspect.

and the only ones who refer to 1- 6 above are those who want to keep him as a live suspect

[Batman]

and the only ones who refer to 1- 6 above are those who want to keep him as a live suspect

As far as I can tell, the presentation was done by someone who doesn't have a horse in the Tumblety race. Same for many of the other posters here, if not all. What matters is that the evidence that he was in jail is done for and becomes mere speculation in light of the day to day running of the courts which you have been shown the historical record for. There is simply no good reason to treat him as a special case worthy of special treatment. If he could provide bail, and he could, he would have done so, so he likely did. Hence why the complete lack of any reference that he was in jail at the time for the murders, even from himself, investigators, journalists, magistrates or staff.

[Trevor Marriott]

Read the post:
http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.p...30&postcount=1

I have read it perhaps you should again in the light of my last post

The issues in dispute are not relative to bail after committal which Orsam uses to bolster his argument in that post and I quote the section he refers to

Section 23 and states:

“…where any Person shall be charged before any Justice of the Peace with any indictable Misdemeanor other than those herein-before mentioned, such Justice, after taking the Examinations in Writing as aforesaid, instead of committing him to Prison for such Offence, shall admit him to Bail.”

This relates to bail after committal

[Chris]

I have read it perhaps you should again in the light of my last post

The issues in dispute are not relative to bail before committal which Orsam use to bolster his argument in that post and I quote the esction he refers to

Section 23 and states:

“…where any Person shall be charged before any Justice of the Peace with any indictable Misdemeanor other than those herein-before mentioned, such Justice, after taking the Examinations in Writing as aforesaid, instead of committing him to Prison for such Offence, shall admit him to Bail.”

This relates to after committal

Yes - that is what David pointed out in his posts, and that is what has been explained to you literally about twenty times now.

For certain misdemeanours - and obviously we are talking about indictable misdemeanours, despite your confusion above - there was an automatic right to bail at committal.

But before committal, bail was at the discretion of the magistrate.

What on earth is so difficult to understand about that?

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes - that is what David pointed out in his posts, and that is what has been explained to you literally about twenty times now.

For certain misdemeanours - and obviously we are talking about indictable misdemeanours, despite your confusion above - there was an automatic right to bail at committal.

But before committal, bail was at the discretion of the magistrate.

What on earth is so difficult to understand about that?

My interpretation of what he states is that bail was automatic for what he termed as minor misdemeanors to which he categorizes Tumblety`s offences, and states that on Nov 7th he was entitled to be bailed.

But his offences do not fit into this they were not petty misdemeanors triable summarily

Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, s. 38, and the Police Acts, admit to bail, with or without sureties, persons charged with any petty misdemeanor for which they are liable to be summarily convicted by a Magistrate—such as drunkenness, assault, disorderly conduct, carelessly doing any hurt or damage, &c.

Persons who are in custody without warrant for any trifling offence, even light felonies, and cannot be taken before a Magistrate within 24 hours must be bailed provided that they are well known and not likely to escape ( this is where discretion prevails? and reasons for not granting bail as I previously stated.

So there was no obligation to bail Tumbley on Nov 7th discretionary or otherwise. There was every reason to keep him in. Because if you read above, look at what was open to the court for refusing bail for simple summary offences, let alone indictable ones.

Yes there were exceptions to the rule but many of those who were bailed prior to committal were not such a risk of leaving the country as he was.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[David Orsam]

I think this is possibly where our self proclaimed legal eagle has got hold of the facts wrong. He has become confused over summary and indictable cases when he talks about bail and the different misdemeanors

This relates to petty misdemeanors triable at a magistrates court only

Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, s. 38, and the Police Acts, admit to bail, with or without sureties, persons charged with any petty misdemeanor for which they are liable to be summarily convicted by a Magistrate—such as drunkenness, assault, disorderly conduct, carelessly doing any hurt or damage, &c.

Persons who are in custody without warrant for any trifling offence, even light felonies, and cannot be taken before a Magistrate within 24 hours must be bailed provided that they are well known and not likely to escape ( this is where discrettion prevails? and reasons for not granting bail as I previoulsy stated.

Tumblety offences were triable only on indictment and not by the magistrates so the automatic bail did not apply, and he could have been kept in custody.

Add to that when he first appeared on Nov 7th the court at that time was not in position to commit him there and then the following would have applied

"If the investigation before the magistrate cannot be completed at a single hearing, he may from time to time remand the accused to gaol for any period not exceeding eight days; or may allow him his liberty in the interval upon his entering into recognizance’s, with or without sureties, for reappearance"

Here we have the 7 day remand in custody procedure couples with all the objections to bail previously mentioned.

A nice try Trevor but, as they say, no cigar.

Firstly, it is not true to say I am "a self proclaimed legal eagle". Only you have called me that.

Secondly, on the substantive point, you are confused, although at least, on this occasion, understandably so.

If you had read my "Fresh Perspective" post carefully – which I fully appreciate you have never done – you would have found this sentence: "For the sake of simplicity, for the purposes of this post, I am going to call the above list “Grave Misdemeanors”, with all other misdemeanors being referred to by me as “Petty Misdemeanors”

I used those two expressions because they were neat ways of describing the two different forms of misdemeanors under section 23 of the 1848 Act rather than referring to "those misdemeanors for which bail is automatic at committal" and "those misdemeanors for which bail is not automatic at committal" all the way through the post. I simply could not think of a better pair of descriptors.

I am, however, fully aware that the proper, standard definition of a "petty misdemeanor" is one triable by a magistrate while a "grave misdemeanour" needs to be tried by a judge.

In other words, there is no point you carrying out internet searches for petty and grave misdemeanors because, in the context of the 1848 Indictable Offences Act, they are descriptions that I am the only person in the world have applied to the two forms of misdemeanors under the Act for the specific purpose of my post on this forum.

I've done my best to explain it to you. If you don't understand it on first reading please think about it carefully and then, if still unsure, think about it again because I don't want to be discussing this with you for the rest of the week.

Finally, I am utterly baffled by you quoting the following:

"If the investigation before the magistrate cannot be completed at a single hearing, he may from time to time remand the accused to gaol for any period not exceeding eight days; or may allow him his liberty in the interval upon his entering into recognizance’s, with or without sureties, for reappearance"

In my "Fresh Perspective" post I quoted almost exactly the same thing from Douglas as follows:

"the justices may, in their discretion, remand the accused for any period not exceeding eight days, and at the expiration of that time may again remand him and so on from time to time as long as a remand may be considered necessary. Or instead of detaining the accused in custody, the justice may discharge him upon a recognizance, with or without sureties, conditioned to appear at an appointed time and place for the continuation of the examination.”

Both quotes (sourced from s.21 of the 1848 Act) are entirely consistent with everything I have said – while being inconsistent with an argument that Tumblety could not have been bailed on remand – so it remains an absolute mystery to me why you quoted what you did or how you think it helps you in any way.

You might want to go back, as they say, to the drawing board.