Cracking The Calendar Code

[Chris]

But you and David seem to keep wanting to stick to the wording that bail for misdemeanors was automatic. It wasn't !

You mention the magistrates discretion so if there was a discretion it was not automatic.

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.

[GUT]

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

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

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

[Trevor Marriott]

Well, well; now, we can use newspaper reports for corroboration. Hmmm.

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

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[mklhawley]

The calendar states he was bailed after committal the newspaper report corroborates that.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Well, well; now, we can use newspaper reports for corroboration. Hmmm.

[Trevor Marriott]

No one is saying Douglas made any of it up. What he said relates to the right to bail at committal. He says nothing about bail before committal, which was at the magistrate's discretion.

I can only keep suggesting that you read David's contributions properly and take some time to consider them.

I think you have also lost your way with this, the waters have been muddied so much.

We know Tumblety was bailed after committal that isn't an issue, we know it took 48 hours for that to happen,That is in line with what we know that the courts/police needed up to 48 hours to check out sureties.

The question is was he bailed before committal and if so when ?

Theoretically, there were options for him to be bailed as has been said it could have been possible but in reality I would suggest highly unlikely

David says he could have been and you seem to agree with him.

I have set out in detail how he could not have been free to murder Kelly, not that he was the killer in any event. But you and David seem to keep wanting to stick to the wording that bail for misdemeanors was automatic. It wasn't !

You mention the magistrates discretion so if there was a discretion it was not automatic. That discretion was based on the prisoners antecedents and circumstances etc which I previously posted would be considered by the court.

You are backing it both ways and state he was bailed because he had an automatic right to bail, and then say he could have been bailed at the magistrates discretion.

The calendar states he was bailed after committal the newspaper report corroborates that. Going back to Gingers case which was reported, that clearly shows he was already on bail before his committal, the Tumblety article does not, quite the contrary.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Batman]

I have some additional corroboration to the belief that he was not bailed on Nov 7th which I will post in due course.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I prefer the complete omission by Tumblety, all the investigators involved, journalists and modern investigations of this 'evidence' for his incarceration. It doesn't exist because it never existed.

There is zero evidence of the contemporary investigators so much as hinting they knew he was in jail at the time. Not a peep from Tumblety about it and nothing from the magistrates or staff about it. Providing incomplete case information would also be negligence on their behalf.

[Chris]

Yes that's the answer Chris, forget it, sweep it under the carpet and pretend it could never have happened, that Douglas made it all up, and that no one ever got remanded, that sure does then fit the theory that Tumbelty could have been bailed on Nov 7th.

No one is saying Douglas made any of it up. What he said relates to the right to bail at committal. He says nothing about bail before committal, which was at the magistrate's discretion.

I can only keep suggesting that you read David's contributions properly and take some time to consider them.

[Trevor Marriott]

Considering that David didn't find a single case where that occurred, apparently it would have happened only in very exceptional cases, if ever.

You really should forget about the statement by Douglas, now that David has explained what it meant.

Yes that's the answer Chris, forget it, sweep it under the carpet and pretend it could never have happened, that Douglas made it all up, and that no one ever got remanded, that sure does then fit the theory that Tumbelty could have been bailed on Nov 7th.

Was he looking for cases where prisoners were remanded? to have found any and publish them would weaken his argument would it not?

His whole argument revolves around the fact that Tumblety having been arrested on Nov 7th was either bailed there and then in his own recognizance, that would not have happened.

For him to have been out on the loose the night Kelly was murdered he would have to have sureties in place on Nov 7th when he appeared at court for bail to be granted there and then. That would not have happened because as has been stated up to 48 hours was required for sureties to be checked out.

So by my reckoning he would not have had his sureties in place until Nov 8th add the minimum 24 hours to check them out would mean the earliest he could have been released would have been Nov 9th after Kelly had been murdered.

Now I am sure it will be said well, he could have had his sureties named on Nov 7th.and 24 hours to check them out would have meant he was on the loose the night of Nov 8th.

But of course the other side to that is that if he had his sureties in place on Nov 7th and it took the full 48 hours to check them out then he would not have been on the loose the night Kelly was murdered

I have some additional corroboration to the belief that he was not bailed on Nov 7th which I will post in due course.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Chris]

Again you are wrong we get back to the Douglas statement "The generally received impression appears to be that the right of bail in misdemeanor does not arise until committal for trial.” The wording doesn't state that bail would not be granted until after committal, but clearly I would suggest that many cases fell into that category for Douglas to make that comment.

In cases where bail was not granted until after committal the question has to be asked, what were the circumstances which would have led to prisoners being remanded in custody until after committal?

Considering that David didn't find a single case where that occurred, apparently it would have happened only in very exceptional cases, if ever.

You really should forget about the statement by Douglas, now that David has explained what it meant.

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes Trevor, that is exactly what I am saying happened based on my analysis of reported remand hearings. Everyone who appeared at court charged with a petty misdemeanor in 1888 (a very different world than today) was granted bail. They didn't all get out because they couldn't all find the sureties but if they could and they applied for it they were almost certain to get it. I'm not sure you have really got your head around the fact that everyone so charged was automatically granted bail at the committal hearing which means that everything that you thought you knew about bail from the twentieth and twenty-first centuries does not apply. It was was a completely different world in 1888 and the considerations that you have listed were irrelevant to all intents and purposes. What was the point of a prosecutor putting up a big fight and opposing bail for a petty misdemeanor when bail was automatic on committal? Basically, no point. They would lose. So they didn't fight. They invariably left it to the magistrate to come up with an appropriate amount.

Again you are wrong we get back to the Douglas statement "The generally received impression appears to be that the right of bail in misdemeanor does not arise until committal for trial.” The wording doesn't state that bail would not be granted until after committal, but clearly I would suggest that many cases fell into that category for Douglas to make that comment.

In cases where bail was not granted until after committal the question has to be asked, what were the circumstances which would have led to prisoners being remanded in custody until after committal?

I will wait for your answer before giving mine

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

This doesn't make sense. The court would have just as much discretion in the amount of bail before committal as after. So bail before committal wouldn't make it one iota more likely that the prisoner would abscond.

Then we get back to the crunch statement "The generally received impression appears to be that the right of bail in misdemeanor does not arise until committal for trial.” and why was that?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Chris]

The answer to that is quite simple if they were remanded in custody up to the committal. The court could then impose a high recognizance from the prisoner or insist on a high amount via sureties or both.

This doesn't make sense. The court would have just as much discretion in the amount of bail before committal as after. So bail before committal wouldn't make it one iota more likely that the prisoner would abscond.

[David Orsam]

Otherwise everyone who appeared at a court would be out on bail on their first appearance.

Yes Trevor, that is exactly what I am saying happened based on my analysis of reported remand hearings. Everyone who appeared at court charged with a petty misdemeanor in 1888 (a very different world than today) was granted bail. They didn't all get out because they couldn't all find the sureties but if they could and they applied for it they were almost certain to get it. I'm not sure you have really got your head around the fact that everyone so charged was automatically granted bail at the committal hearing which means that everything that you thought you knew about bail from the twentieth and twenty-first centuries does not apply. It was was a completely different world in 1888 and the considerations that you have listed were irrelevant to all intents and purposes. What was the point of a prosecutor putting up a big fight and opposing bail for a petty misdemeanor when bail was automatic on committal? Basically, no point. They would lose. So they didn't fight. They invariably left it to the magistrate to come up with an appropriate amount.

[David Orsam]

But of course the another question which perhaps our legal eagle could answer is that, what would happen if a court was prepared to bail a prisoner with sureties, and that prisoner could not come up with the sureties? remand in custody or release. Technically the court is not refusing to grant bail

I would suggest that in that case the prisoner would say in jail with the bail option still open. There has to be some discretion otherwise the courts might just as well bail everyone, sureties or not.

If, when you refer to "legal eagle", you are referring to me then it is very simple.

If the magistrate grants bail with sureties to a prisoner charged with a petty misdemeanor at a committal hearing (which is what I assume you are asking about) and the prisoner can't come up with sureties he goes to prison until he can find the sureties.

What happens is that the magistrate writes the bail conditions on the reverse of the warrant of commitment so that when the prisoner eventually comes up with the sureties he can be released from prison by the governor. If you read my James Read "Tumbleteazer" thread I set this process out in more detail.

So yes you are absolutely right. The prisoner goes to prison with the bail option still open. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make though. If you are trying to say that magistrate can set bail at a ridiculously high level for a petty misdemeanor so that he effectively denies bail, then you are wrong. The magistrate was not allowed to do this. It had to be a reasonable amount. You will find this in your friend Douglas, "Summary Jurisdiction Procedure", note to s.23: "...excessive bail is against the policy of the law, and ought not to be taken" (1 Will. & M. sess. 2. c.2).

[Trevor Marriott]

We all know perfectly well what could happen if the court "bailed someone like Tumblety" but there was nothing the magistrates could do about it. They would have to bail him at the committal hearing. As I have said repeatedly, in practice, they would bail "someone like Tumblety" at the remand hearing too because it made no sense to remand such people into custody without bail when their liberation was inevitable in a short time. And that is what happened in reality in 1888 Trevor, hard though it is for you to believe.



Oh right, it was a "common sense approach". Translation - You invented it. You didn't "quote" it. Perhaps in future when you set out such "common sense" information you could make clear at the time that you are the source of it.

No I didn't invent them. but the prosecution would have had some say with regards to the granting of bail, and if they had any of those concerns I listed they would have surely voiced them to the court. Otherwise everyone who appeared at a court would be out on bail on their first appearance.

Those same concerns I listed are still used today.