Cracking The Calendar Code

[Hercule Poirot]

Someone seems to have a serious reading problem when he can't see the difference between the words '1912 Edition of the Police Code' and the words '1889 Edition' of the Police Code. Hmm!

[Trevor Marriott]

Right Trevor, I am going to follow Chris' sensible example and stop responding to your posts now because I will clearly never be able to communicate with you in any meaningful way. There is no point me replying to you in any case because all your questions have already been answered and it is perfectly obvious that you are not doing me the courtesy of reading and considering my posts. If, by any miracle, however, you say something new or relevant I will respond. As you seem to have had a bee in your bonnet today about your latest question (which is virtually identical to the question I have already answered, as Chris as noted) I will indulge you one final time and answer in a different way.

Your newly worded question:

"If bail before committal was at the discretion of the magistrate what circumstances would cause the magistrate to use his discretion and not grant bail ?"

My answer:

A magistrate could exercise his discretion to refuse bail before committal for whatever reason he wanted, and under any circumstances. For misdemeanour offences, however, it was rare in practice for that discretion to be exercised because, after committal, bail was either (a) automatically granted by the magistrate (for "petty" misdemeanors) or (b) automatically granted upon application to a Judge in Chambers (for grave misdemeanors). That being so, it was essentially irrational for bail to be refused (because the prisoner was bound to be granted bail at or after committal). This is more so for petty misdemeanors, where an application wasn't even required under the statute at the committal hearing and the magistrate himself had to admit to bail (as opposed to an application having to be made to a judge). The most obvious reason for a refusal to admit to bail prior to committal for a misdemeanour offence would be if there was a likelihood of more a serious charge to follow (i.e. a felony offence) in which case it would then be perfectly rational for the magistrate to wait until the committal hearing before coming to a decision, and he might well refuse bail on remand.

In terms of a high possibility of the prisoner becoming a fugitive from justice, it's not impossible in respect of a serious case of grave misdemeanour charge that such a factor might be relevant, in the sense of a magistrate wanting to put the responsibility of such an important decision off to a judge of the Queen's Bench Division. I have referred to the case of Annie Frost charged (with two others) at Westminster Police Court on 2 July 1888 with "conspiring to obtain divers sums of money with intent to cheat and defraud" which was a misdemeanor. At her first remand hearing, Inspector Marshall said "there would be many further charges" (Times 3 July 1888) and the magistrate, Mr d'Eyncourt, refused bail. At the next remand hearing, on 9 July 1988, Frost's lawyer asked for bail on her behalf. In his submission, he claimed that Inspector Marshall had made an "unjust and cruel assertion" that she had been in prison in Scotland. He said: "I press for bail for all the prisoners, and I say that when the case for the prosecution is disposed of, I shall submit a point of law which I think will be fatal to it, and if I do not succeed I shall be able to produce facts that will put a very different complexion on the proceedings". This seemed to sway the magistrate and he said: "If I take bail it must be very good bail – two sureties in £100 each." At this point, Inspector Marshall became very concerned and said: "I repeat that this woman has been convicted before, and I shall bring evidence of it. On that ground and on account of the magnitude of the alleged frauds, I ask for most substantial bail – otherwise we shall never see her again. This is not an ordinary case, the prisoner is an extraordinary woman, one of the greatest swindlers in the country". What I find interesting about this quote is that, despite his clear belief that Frost was going to flee, the inspector still believed that she was likely to be bailed and was hoping for very high bail that she could not find. In response to questions from the magistrate, Marshall he said that she had committed hundreds if not thousands of frauds and, in the face of such police pressure the magistrate wilted and refused bail (Times, 10 July 1888). At the next hearing on 16 July, one of the three prisoners was bailed (Robert Gigner) but Frost and her "husband" were still refused it (Times, 17 July 1888). At the committal hearing on 23 July 1888, the charges were stated to be "a general conspiracy to defraud, and obtaining goods and money by means of worthless cheques and false representations" (clearly a grave misdemeanour under the heading of obtaining property by false pretences). At this hearing, the defence lawyer, Mr Lewis argued that the prisoners were entitled to bail, saying; "Substantial sureties could be given. The charges were all misdemeanors.", Mr Wotner, for the prosecution, countered, "I am afraid if you let her out on bail we shall never see her again." In response: "Mr d'Eyncourt said he would not publicly state his reasons, but bail would be refused." (Times, 24 July 1888).

As mentioned in my OP, Frost applied to a Judge in Chambers for a writ of habeas corpus and was, indeed, granted bail but, it seems, despite the fuss and great expense to achieve this, was unable to find the sureties and remained in custody.

I hope that answers your question.

Why don't you stop muddying the waters with all this crap that is not relevant. As you have been told no two case are the same, and no two prisoners circumstances are the same. Yet you keep posting details of all these different cases.

I am glad you are going to stop replying to my posts because I am not only going to do the same to yours but all others on this thread, because I have said all that is to be said in relation to this issue, and I will conclude by saying that although we cannot conclusively prove he was in custody the night MJK was killed. The evidence and facts that we do have support the strong belief that he was.

As to whether folks want to side with you or me is immaterial. I am happy with the result of my research and the conclusions I have arrived at. I am more than happy to point out to anyone in the future the flaws in you convoluted interpretations of what you have put forward.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Chris]

It's outrageous that David is muddying the water by posting all this factual information (aka "crap").

Can we not just stick to speculation, so that the playing field is a bit more level? I mean why should people who have gone to the trouble of researching a subject have an unfair advantage over those who are just plucking their material out of thin air (to put it politely)?

[Trevor Marriott]

It's outrageous that David is muddying the water by posting all this factual information (aka "crap").

Can we not just stick to speculation, so that the playing field is a bit more level? I mean why should people who have gone to the trouble of researching a subject have an unfair advantage over those who are just plucking their material out of thin air (to put it politely)?

Its irrelevant, and you are getting taken in by it, but you cant see that because there is a desperate need to keep Tumblety alive as a suspect.

I understand the need for conclusive proof but that is not going to happen so we have to go with what we have, coupled with our ability to fully understand what is before us. Which you and others seem to not be able to do because of all the irrelevant crap he is putting forward, just look at the length of his posts.

I can some it all up in 4 paragraphs.

[GUT]

Earlier on Trevor was spouting on about how many bail applications he has observed, and then his main argument seems to be that certain submission were made because common sense says it would have been. I wonder f he has ever seen someone get bail that shouldn't have?

[Chris]

I'm on Trevor Marriott's side now. Just look at the length of David Orsam's posts. Who's got time to read that stuff, especially when we're all obliged to post at least 50 messages a day?

(On the other hand, if one were a plagiarist, one could make the most of it, and get several chapters out of them! Money for old rope, really.)

[mklhawley]

I keep thinking. Tumblety self promoted his "involvement" in the JTR story.

Well, let's look at this idea of Tumblety's connection to the Ripper murders was only him talking to a reporter in order to promote himself and be connected to the famous Ripper case (and also lead the reporter away from the gross indecency case).

Don't you see what this means, Phil? The only way this would work is that Tumblety was not even considered a minor suspect. Tumblety made it all up. Wolf V. even accepts Tumblety as a minor suspect.

If Tumblety was arrested on suspicion and the detectives believed he was a nonstarter, the newspaper reports are still correct. He was first arrested on suspicion and after this, he was arrested on gross indecency.

1.Picking and choosing newspaper reports is a hazardous game.

You're not picking and choosing newspapers, Phil, because 100% of them reported he was arrested on suspicion. You're ignoring evidence that corroborates Littlechild AND Assistant Commissioner Anderson.

Phil, you've placed yourself in the 'Tumblety wasn't even a suspect' category.

Mike

[PaulB]

I don't know whether you've considered this, but I think it would be an excellent idea if you wrote up the substance of your recent posts as an article for one of the Ripper journals.

For myself, I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that the online forums aren't a suitable place for research to be presented, because discussions can too easily be disrupted by even one unreasonable person.

I think I can speak for the editorial team; the pages of the Rip are open to you David. I'd welcome an article laying out your case. It looks like being the definitive piece.

[PaulB]

That is very good of you to say so Chris and, yes, perhaps I should have done it that way from the start but, you know, even if I knew who to contact for this, it all sounds bit too much like hard work in preparing it to be published (ripperology is not my primary interest & I have a full time job) and there is inevitably a long delay before publication. Posting it on the forum allowed me to get it out very quickly and I can now move on to other research topics.

Where I take a slightly different view from you is that I like the immediacy of the responses on the forum, the chance to defend one's work and have it probed for weakness, the development of a collective view and if we both have the same person in mind there is no question but that he has done the most on this forum to support my thesis. Everyone can see through a weak argument and, when the argument against me is so appallingly bad, it's like a dream. He couldn't have done a better job for me if I was paying him!

But if anyone else would like to develop the points made for publication I'd be more than happy, especially if anyone can add anything to it.

David,
I would just point out that the message boards have a certain transience about them, whereas the publication of an article offers a permanence, and in this case that is important because, as said, you seem to have presented the definitive answer to whether Tumblety was in custody of the 9th. It deserves to be presented in an easily cited journal. Writing an article does demand a great deal of time and effort, but....

Paul

[GUT]

David,
I would just point out that the message boards have a certain transience about them, whereas the publication of an article offers a permanence, and in this case that is important because, as said, you seem to have presented the definitive answer to whether Tumblety was in custody of the 9th. It deserves to be presented in an easily cited journal. Writing an article does demand a great deal of time and effort, but....

Paul

Paul

I beg to differ but I don't believe we have the definitive answer, in my opinion all David has shown is that it is possible, that he was out as opposed to those who argue that he could not possibly have been out.

That then gives weight to the argument that had he been incarcerated on 9 Nov why would he be a suspect.

[Trevor Marriott]

David,
I would just point out that the message boards have a certain transience about them, whereas the publication of an article offers a permanence, and in this case that is important because, as said, you seem to have presented the definitive answer to whether Tumblety was in custody of the 9th. It deserves to be presented in an easily cited journal. Writing an article does demand a great deal of time and effort, but....

Paul

Definitive answer ! if you think that, then there is no hope for you. The plot is well and truly lost.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[John G]

I think I can speak for the editorial team; the pages of the Rip are open to you David. I'd welcome an article laying out your case. It looks like being the definitive piece.

Hello Paul,

I'm sorry I'm going off topic but is it now possible to obtain copies of Rip? The last time I checked the website site didn't appear to be operational- I was trying to obtain the issue containing the Isschenschmidt article, which in the end Lynn Cates was kind enough to forward to me. I sent an email but received no reply. Do you need to be on a mailing list? Is it possible to obtain back copies?

Regards,

John

[PaulB]

Paul

I beg to differ but I don't believe we have the definitive answer, in my opinion all David has shown is that it is possible, that he was out as opposed to those who argue that he could not possibly have been out.

That then gives weight to the argument that had he been incarcerated on 9 Nov why would he be a suspect.

GUT
Well, yes, that is what David has done, and as there doesnt appear to be a coherent counter argument, it is what will be accepted. 'Definitive' probably isn't the right word - nothing seems definitive in this subject - but I couldn't think of another way of saying 'accepted'.

Paul

[Monty]

I don't know whether you've considered this, but I think it would be an excellent idea if you wrote up the substance of your recent posts as an article for one of the Ripper journals.

For myself, I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that the online forums aren't a suitable place for research to be presented, because discussions can too easily be disrupted by even one unreasonable person.

I agree Chris,

Davids posts are, in my opinion, valued research and very beneficial. Would be nice to see them in an easy accessible place.

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

Earlier on Trevor was spouting on about how many bail applications he has observed, and then his main argument seems to be that certain submission were made because common sense says it would have been. I wonder f he has ever seen someone get bail that shouldn't have?

I dont know what the relevance of that question is to the issues being discussed. Like I keep saying no two case are the same now, and no 2 cases were the same in 1888.

Just for the record I have been accused of inventing grounds for the magistrates on Nov 7th for not granting bail some of which included

Risk of absconding
Likely to commit further offences
Likely to interfere with witnesses

I also made mention of the reasons why police under certain circustances in the first instance would not grant bail in 1888, which are fully documented and, which were in line with some of those. So anyone who thinks that a court in considering a bail application in 1888 would not consider those same factors using their discretaion on bail is deluded.

These objections to the granting of bail have been used in practice since 1888 up to the present day here is an extract from the bail act 1976 legislation

Part I
Defendants Accused or Convicted of Imprisonable Offences

Defendants to whom Part I applies

1 Where the offence or one of the offences of which the defendant is accused or convicted in the proceedings is punishable with imprisonment the following provisions of this Part of this Schedule apply.

Exceptions to right to bail

2 The defendant need not be granted bail if the court is satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that the defendant, if released on bail (whether subject to conditions or not) would—
(a)fail to surrender to custody, or

(b)commit an offence while on bail, or

(c)interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstruct the course of justice, whether in relation to himself or any other person.

[F12AThe defendant need not be granted bail if—
(a)the offence is an indictable offence or an offence triable either way;

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk