Cracking The Calendar Code

[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.

Stewart
A question for you which i have asked others and none so far have been able or wanted to answer it

That question is "If the magistrates had a discretion on the granting of bail before committal, what would the factors be whereby they didn't grant bail" ?

[PaulB]

Paul
I am certainly not squirming, I am fully focused with regards to how I have set my stall out with regards to Tumblety being is prison the night MK was killed. It is others who seem to be squirming trying to come up with nothing more than conjecture on how he could have been out.

You are a very astute man perhaps you would care to answer the question I have asked several posters on here but none seem to want to answer it and I wonder why? because it is a an important question

That question is "If the magistrates had a discretion on the granting of bail before committal, what would the factors be whereby they didn't grant bail" ?

Trevor
To answer your question: I have absolutely no idea.

In part that's why I want you to make your case as best you can, citing your sources and so on. At some point I want to be able to say (a) that David Orsam and others have shown that there is no evidence that Tumblety was in custody on 9th November, or (b) Trevor Marriott has demonstrated that Tumblety was (or very likely) was in custody on 9th November.

It would perhaps be good to cite the argument for the one of the other.

I do see some squirming - for example, your reply to Stewart was unsatisfactory because Tumblety could have quite legitimately said two or three days. I'm also not at all sure that Tumblety would have enjoyed being suspected of being Jack. In fact I think he'd have done all he could to squirm out of it. A good, solid reply to Stewart would show that you are engaging in serious discussion.

I don't think it is fair to say other people are conjecturing. Insofar as possible they seem to be citing sources and explaining what they mean.

Anyway, it's none of my business really. I just want to have the argument laid out and discussed.

[Chris]

Trevor
To answer your question: I have absolutely no idea.

I have just pointed to Trevor Marriott that - despite what he claimed - David Orsam went to the trouble of giving him a detailed answer to his question. Here it is:

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=337046&postcount=109

Marriott's response? He just carries on claiming that his question hasn't been answered.

I don't think this is genuine confusion on Marriott's part. I think he is deliberately trying to confuse and disrupt the discussion.

[Trevor Marriott]

I have just pointed to Trevor Marriott that - despite what he claimed - David Orsam went to the trouble of giving him a detailed answer to his question. Here it is:

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=337046&postcount=109

Marriott's response? He just carries on claiming that his question hasn't been answered.

I don't think this is genuine confusion on Marriott's part. I think he is deliberately trying to confuse and disrupt the discussion.

Yes he has attempted to answer the question but again has sidestepped the issue by not being able to understand and has suggested reasons which are not in line with what a magistrate has to decide on what he says

1. He was not legally represented and did not know he was entitled.

2. He was broke – all his friends were poor – and he knew he would never be able to find bail either in himself of with sureties so did not bother.

3. He was happy to go to prison because his life was so miserable.

These are from Tumblety the decsion would not be of his making it would be the courts

David then says "there may be other reasons. None of the above would be considered worthy of a court not granting bail before committal" So now he is agreeing that bail was only given before committal at the discretion of the magistrates and i have clearly shown what the criteria would have been for the magistrate to decide on

The main reasons I say why a court would not give bail to someone like Tumbety before committal are

1. Likely to abscond
2. No permanent residence in UK
3. No assests in the UK to enable him to be bailed in his own recognizance
4. Likely to commit further offences
5. Likely to interfere with witnesses

And then David concludes by saying

So it is perfectly possible, and certainly did happen, for persons charged with petty misdemeanors to end up in prison until their committal and after their committal. So why not Tumblety ?

[John G]

Hello David,

Sorry if I appear confused but as I understand the situation Tumblety appeared at the Police Court on the 7th November and was then remanded into custody. However, presumably this was not the same as a committal hearing, where the magistrates would then determine if he should be discharged or if there was sufficient weight of evidence against him to commit for trial (the equivalent of grand jury proceedings). Is it possible he could then have had an immediate committal hearing- at which point, after being committed for trial, bail could be considered- after being remanded into custody by the Police Court? Could the Police Court undertake the committal hearing?

And, if I have understood you correctly, the Police Court, prior to the committal hearing, could remand a prisoner with or without bail but that bail was usually always granted. Therefore, as the Police Court hearing was on the 7th it is likely he was bailed on or near to that date.

[Jonathan H]

Rolling Thunder meets the Black Knight?

Can I make a suggestion?

David has proven that the anti Tumblety-jail-alibi-Kelly position, which had claimed to be a definitely ascertained fact, is nothing of the kind. The evidence points to be it being more likely that Tumblety was out for the 9th.

As I, and others have pointed out, it is also a logical absurdity that Tumblety would not have used this iron-clad alibi in his 1889 interview (or that Anderson would have requested his handwriting from American authorities, or have Andrews do a background check in Canada, or that Jack Littlechild would have still considered the quack, in 1913, a likely suspect).

My suggestion is that we should just stop as people are wasting their time if they think that a logical argument backed up by primary sources (Trevor, you still mistake second-hand for secondary) will convince him that he might be wrong.

Because Trevor cannot admit that without losing face.

He is thus fighting from a hopelessly over-run position and damn the evidence (what evidence, you suspect-driven pygmies!) He is LBJ promising never to lose South Viet Nam, Custer at Little Big Horn, or, even better, the Black Knight with most of his limbs having been hacked off yet still howling he will win by biting his opponents to death (to be fair to Python's unforgettable character even he concedes it is a draw at the conclusion of his comprehensive defeat by Arthur. That isn't gonna happen here, folks).

Let us just stop wasting human energy and instead go and admire the trees and the sky and the flowers ...

[Chris]

I'll just note that in the post I linked to, David Orsam went on to suggest another possible reason not of the prisoner's making, which Marriott has suppressed. Instead, he's invented a quotation which doesn't appear in David Orsam's post.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

A lot has been made of Tumblety not choosing to defend himself against the charges of being the Ripper by explaining that he was in prison on the day of the Millers Court murder.

But had he chosen this defense it might have been discovered that he was in prison at the time on charges of gross indecency, something he was anxious to play down.

Regards,

Simon

[John G]

Stewart
A question for you which i have asked others and none so far have been able or wanted to answer it

That question is "If the magistrates had a discretion on the granting of bail before committal, what would the factors be whereby they didn't grant bail" ?

Hello Trevor,

As I understand it Tumblety must have had a Police Court hearing on the 7th November because he was remanded in custody on that date, and only the Police Court had the power to remand. However, as he had only been charged with a petty misdemeanour, why would the court not exercise their discretion in favour of remanding with bail?

Surely that's the most logical conclusion. I mean, after the committal hearing he either had to be discharged or committed to trial; and if committed to trial he had to be granted bail, even if he was considered an extreme flight risk: the court would have no discretion after such an hearing, as he was only charged with a petty misdemeanour. Therefore, it would surely have been vexatious to deny Tumblety bail at the Police Court hearing as that would simply be delaying the inevitable, i.e. his discharge or the granting of bail after the committal hearing.

If you disagree with this argument, are you able to provide any examples, from the court records, of anyone charged with a petty misdemeanour being denied bail by the Police Court, I.e. prior to the committal hearing?

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello Trevor,

As I understand it Tumblety must have had a Police Court hearing on the 7th November because he was remanded in custody on that date, and only the Police Court had the power to remand. However, as he had only been charged with a petty misdemeanour, why would the court not exercise their discretion in favour of remanding with bail?

Bearing in mind he had been charged with an indictable misdemeanor which could only be dealt with at a higher court. So there had to be committal proceedings. That usually meant that the witnesses would attend court and give their evidence. Following that the accused would be asked by the Magistrate if he wanted to say anything. Then the Magistrate having heard the evidence would decide if the case was proven enough for it to be put before the higher court. If the case wasnt proven then the defendant would be discharged and no further action taken

So the committal could not have taken place on Nov 7th as he was only arrested on that date and the police would need time to summon the witnesses.Hence the 7 day delay to Nov 14th when the commital took place. yes bail was granted then to him with the proviso that he came up with two sureties which he did and it took up to 48 hours for them to be checked out as being suitable

So it all comes back to bail before committal

Surely that's the most logical conclusion. I mean, after the committal hearing he either had to be discharged or committed to trial; and if committed to trial he had to be granted bail, even if he was considered an extreme flight risk: the court would have no discretion after such an hearing, as he was only charged with a petty misdemeanour. Therefore, it would surely have been vexatious to deny Tumblety bail at the Police Court hearing as that would simply be delaying the inevitable, i.e. his discharge or the granting of bail after the committal hearing.

You have to bear in mind that after the committal hearing he would have been one step nearer conviction especially if he had legal representation at the committal stage, and even with that an application to discharge was thrown out. He would have known that and the court would be aware that they were one step nearer a conviction, so although at that stage they had to grant bail they wanted substantial sureties to try to ensure his attendance. I have alreday detailed a number of reasons as why their would have been objections to bail before committal

If you disagree with this argument, are you able to provide any examples, from the court records, of anyone charged with a petty misdemeanour being denied bail by the Police Court, I.e. prior to the committal hearing?

There are no examples or court records I can produce simply because no two case are the same, no two prisoners antecedents are the same, and that is why the courts had a discretion as whether or not to bail a person before committal, whether it be for a petty misdemeanor or an indictable misdemeanor.

If you look at S38 it says that bail must be granted unless the person is not known, or may escape (abscond) that is only in relation to petty misdemeanors triable at a magistrates court. Tumblety`s charges were not petty misdemeanors they were indictable misdemeanors. So of course the court would have had concerns about the likelihood of Tumbley absconding at the earliest opportunity, and those concerns were realised when he did just that as soon as he got bail. Had he got bail before then he would have gone before and not stayed around to see how strong the evidence was against him, he would already have known that by the fact he had done the dirty deeds.


Having been involved in may committals at court over the years involving these same issues I like to think that I have a heads up on most on here. Despite being told by some that I don't know what I am talking about. David has looked at this from a text book exercise and not how things worked from a practical perspective

Playing devils advocate even if the court had granted him bail on Nov 7th with sureties how long would it have taken to check them out? Going by his committal his sureties took 48 hours. But I accept in other cases there is evidence that it only took 24 hours, but again as I said no two case are the same, and no two cases should be compared to each other. If that had been the case then that 48 hours would have meant he was locked safely away the night Kelly was murdered

But the reality is that he wasn't bailed until his committal

[Hercule Poirot]

The way I understand this topic is that one has this silly theory saying "If I can sit on it, it's necessarily a chair". After telling him that what he says may be true depending on what he is sitting on, David explained clearly what furniture is, what a chair is, its components, how it's made. But the other keeps coming up with arguments such as "It has four legs as a chair does, so I'm wright and prove me wrong". After pages and pages of explanations, the other refuses to either read or admit, he keeps saying, "It has four legs, I can sit on it hence it's a chair" when we all know he's been sitting on a table!!!

What this means is whatever we say, he will attempt to deny it, prove it wrong for one simple reason. If he accepts David's position, it would contradict his position that the Ripper probably never existed.

[Trevor Marriott]

The way I understand this topic is that one has this silly theory saying "If I can sit on it, it's necessarily a chair". After telling him that what he says may be true depending on what he is sitting on, David explained clearly what furniture is, what a chair is, its components, how it's made. But the other keeps coming up with arguments such as "It has four legs as a chair does, so I'm wright and prove me wrong". After pages and pages of explanations, the other refuses to either read or admit, he keeps saying, "It has four legs, I can sit on it hence it's a chair" when we all know he's been sitting on a table!!!

What this means is whatever we say, he will attempt to deny it, prove it wrong for one simple reason. If he accepts David's position, it would contradict his position that the Ripper probably never existed.

Well he didnt exist did he ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Simon Wood]

Bonjour Hercule,

Jack the Ripper did not exist, so what need is there for Trevor to consider David's position?

Au revoir,

Simon

[Hercule Poirot]

Well he didnt exist did he ?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Keep sitting on your table and calling it a chair. I have some growing rocks I must attend to and don't have time to go back to how the world was created to set things strait.

[Simon Wood]

Bonjour Hercule,

What makes you so certain Jack the Ripper existed, when all we have to go on is a century-and-a-quarter of assorted BS?

Au revoir,

Simon