Cracking The Calendar Code

[John G]

The only fly in the ointment with what you say is that Tumbletys charges were not petty misdemeanors, the were indictable misdemeanors, petty misdemeanors could be tried at magistrates court, and yes you are probably right that persons charged with those would have no doubt been granted bail. But the more serious cases would be looked at in a different light with regards to bail

So as I said in my previous reply to you there was more of an onus on a court to ensure someone with Tumbletys antecedents etc acutely made it to the committal and in his case because he was a flight risk they would have kept him in custody.

If he had have been bailed he would have absconded asap, which is what he did after the committal so that shows his early intent to abscond and shows that the court were right to remand him in custody because they had that same belief and were proved right

Hello Trevor,

Yes, I accept the fact that Tumblety was charged with an indictable misdemeanours, coupled with the fact that he was probably considered a flight risk, may have swayed the court's decision in favour of not granting bail.

However, that still needs to be balanced against the fact that, ultimately, he had to be granted bail at the committal hearing so, again, such a ruling would only be delaying the inevitable. Of course, it would be extremely helpful if evidence could be provided of instances where police courts of the era did deny bail, i.e. in respect of indictable misdemeanours or flight risk issues.

Your point about sureties is clearly well made, as is your argument that it could have taken 48 hours to check out bail sureties. I must admit that this has been bothering me as well: as you say, why the 48 hour delay in being released at the committal stage if sureties were already in place and had been checked out? It is possible that bail was increased, but presumably if bail was set by the Police Court, this would already have been at a high level, considering the indictable misdemeanour charge and possible flight risk issue. And, of course, if he was free on bail on the 7th or 8th November why make no attempt to flea at that stage? After all, he would have had until the 14th November, the date of the committal hearing, to do so. And at the very least, why did he not take stronger steps to ensure that he could meet any bail requirement at the committal stage, anticipating that bail may be increased? In fact, from what I understand the sureties he eventually provided were virtually strangers.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello Trevor,

Yes, I accept the fact that Tumblety was charged with an indictable misdemeanours, coupled with the fact that he was probably considered a flight risk, may have swayed the court's decision in favour of not granting bail.

However, that still needs to be balanced against the fact that, ultimately, he had to be granted bail at the committal hearing so, again, such a ruling would only be delaying the inevitable. Of course, it would be extremely helpful if evidence could be provided of instances where police courts of the era did deny bail, i.e. in respect of indictable misdemeanours or flight risk issues.

Your point about sureties is clearly well made, as is your argument that it could have taken 48 hours to check out bail sureties. I must admit that this has been bothering me as well: as you say, why the 48 hour delay in being released at the committal stage if sureties were already in place and had been checked out? It is possible that bail was increased, but presumably if bail was set by the Police Court, this would already have been at a high level, considering the indictable misdemeanour charge and possible flight risk issue. And, of course, if he was free on bail on the 7th or 8th November why make no attempt to flea at that stage? After all, he would have had until the 14th November, the date of the committal hearing, to do so. And at the very least, why did he not take stronger steps to ensure that he could meet any bail requirement at the committal stage, anticipating that bail may be increased? In fact, from what I understand the sureties he eventually provided were virtually strangers.

Thank you John

Your observations and comments are points that others should perhaps consider

In respect of the bail issue I think you have to look at it if the police were not prepared to bail persons for petty misdemeanors who were at risk of absconding, you can bet you life that courts would have taken the same stance for the same reason for indictable misdemeanors.

[Chris]

Of course, it would be extremely helpful if evidence could be provided of instances where police courts of the era did deny bail, i.e. in respect of indictable misdemeanours or flight risk issues.

This is what David searched for, isn't it? He looked at indictable misdemeanours of the less serious type, for which bail would be automatically granted at committal, and he wasn't able to find a single instance in which bail was refused before committal.

On that basis, it's impossible to argue that the magistrate would have been likely to refuse bail to Tumblety before committal. People who are so inclined would do better to argue that Tumblety was unable to find sureties, or unable to find them in time.

[John G]

This is what David searched for, isn't it? He looked at indictable misdemeanours of the less serious type, for which bail would be automatically granted at committal, and he wasn't able to find a single instance in which bail was refused before committal.

On that basis, it's impossible to argue that the magistrate would have been likely to refuse bail to Tumblety before committal. People who are so inclined would do better to argue that Tumblety was unable to find sureties, or unable to find them in time.

Hello Chris,

Do you think the fact that Tumblety attended the committal hearing on the 14th November- 7 days after the Police Court hearing -suggests that he probably was in custody during the intervening period? After all, as I pointed out on my last post, isnt it likely he would have fled during that week long period if he wasn't in custody?

And the fact that he was wasn't released until the 16th November- 9 days after the Police Court hearing- following the committal hearing on the 14th, surely is indicative of the fact that he was struggling to find sureties.

[Chris]

Do you think the fact that Tumblety attended the committal hearing on the 14th November- 7 days after the Police Court hearing -suggests that he probably was in custody during the intervening period? After all, as I pointed out on my last post, isnt it likely he would have fled during that week long period if he wasn't in custody?

And the fact that he was wasn't released until the 16th November- 9 days after the Police Court hearing- following the committal hearing on the 14th, surely is indicative of the fact that he was struggling to find sureties.

I think those would be fair arguments to make for the likelihood of Tumblety being in custody. But there are arguments on the other side too - the argument that he would have mentioned being in custody at the time of Kelly's murder, for example.

But I think the important thing is to be clear that we are only dealing in probabilities and opinions. There's nothing in the legal procedures or the known records to determine the question definitely either way.

[Trevor Marriott]

This is what David searched for, isn't it? He looked at indictable misdemeanours of the less serious type, for which bail would be automatically granted at committal, and he wasn't able to find a single instance in which bail was refused before committal.

On that basis, it's impossible to argue that the magistrate would have been likely to refuse bail to Tumblety before committal. People who are so inclined would do better to argue that Tumblety was unable to find sureties, or unable to find them in time.

I cant see how you can keep saying it was unlikely for the magistrate on NOV 7th to refuse to grant bail. He had a discretion, that discretion was put in place for specific purposes and there to be used. If Tumbletys antecedents and charges did not fit that discretion, then please tell us what did? Because there had to be some reasons why at his discretion, a magistrate would not grant bail, and so far no one has come up with anything that is remotely plausible to negate the reasons I have put forward to suggest he was remanded

[Trevor Marriott]

I think those would be fair arguments to make for the likelihood of Tumblety being in custody. But there are arguments on the other side too - the argument that he would have mentioned being in custody at the time of Kelly's murder, for example.

But I think the important thing is to be clear that we are only dealing in probabilities and opinions. There's nothing in the legal procedures or the known records to determine the question definitely either way.

You are right, so perhaps more restraint is called for from those who are jumping up and down, adamant that I am wrong and David Orsam is right.

[Chris]

Trevor Marriott

One of the many posts you don't seem to have read (or understood) is the one in which I said I wouldn't be responding to your nonsense.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor Marriott

One of the many posts you don't seem to have read (or understood) is the one in which I said I wouldn't be responding to your nonsense.

Is that because you have no plausible answers to respond with ?

Nonsence or not its not going to go away

[mklhawley]

Is that because you have no plausible answers to respond with ?

Nonsence or not its not going to go away

I guess the fact that you posted last means you prevailed? Ok.

[David Orsam]

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.

Thank you very much Paul. I've been thinking about how I could achieve this without simply repeating what I have already posted and boring everyone who has been following this thread. I have a few ideas and I will have a crack at it and submit something. Are you able to let me know (either on or off board) roughly how many words it should be, what format it should be in and how I can send it to you?

[David Orsam]

Your point about sureties is clearly well made, as is your argument that it could have taken 48 hours to check out bail sureties. I must admit that this has been bothering me as well:

Hi John, just to respond to this quickly. It's important not to fall into the trap of simply assuming that because it took Tumblety 48 hours to be released from prison this was definitely because it took the police 48 hours to check his sureties. There could be other reasons, such as finding the sureties in the first place. It could take prisoners much longer than 48 hours to be released after committal. Just to give one of many examples: in the Calendar for the 19 November 1888 C.C.C. sessions, we find a Benjamin Marsh, charged with a felony offence (stealing, as well as obtaining by false pretences) who was received into custody on 15 October 1888, with date of warrant being 29 October 1888 (i.e. date of committal) and then the entry under Marsh's name is "Bailed 5th November, 1888". So it took him seven days (and he was tried on 21 November).

[David Orsam]

However, I'm prepared to accept that the Police Court might have used the provisions of S38 as guidance, however, did this happen in practice?

Hi John,

If, for any reason, a magistrate found himself reading S.38 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879 (relating to police bail), he would have found this:

"A person taken into custody without a warrant shall be brought before a court of summary jurisdiction as soon as practicable after he is so taken into custody, and if it is not or will not be practicable to bring him before a court of summary jurisdiction within twenty-four hours after he is so taken into custody, a superintendent or inspector of police, or other officer of police of equal or superior, or in charge of any police station, shall inquire into the case, and, except where the offence appears to such superintendent, inspector or officer to be of a serious nature, shall discharge the prisoner, upon his entering into a recognizance, with or without sureties, for a reasonable amount, to appear before some court of summary jurisdiction at the day time and place named in the recognizance"

In other words, in respect of ALL offences other than "serious" ones, the Act provides not one single reason for the police to refuse bail and, indeed, says that it "shall" (not "may") be provided.

[David Orsam]

A point has been raised on another thread about the example of Oscar Wilde. Those taking the trouble to read my posts will recall that I was asked to provide reasons why a magistrate might refuse bail for a misdemeanour (such as gross indecency) at a remand hearing. I stated that one reason for doing so would be if he was told that more serious charges might follow, because then refusing bail would make sense.

Wilde's first remand hearing (along with Alfred Taylor) was on Saturday 6 April 1895, following his arrest the previous day.

From the Times of 8 April 1895:

"At Bow Street, on Saturday, Oscar Wilde described as a gentleman, of Tite Street, Chelsea, was placed in the dock before Sir John Bridge, charged with offences under the 11th section of the Criminal Law Amendment Act.
.....

Mr Gill said that the precise nature of the charges he should ask the magistrate to commit Wilde upon would depend on the evidence disclosed in the depositions after the matter had been thoroughly inquired into.
.....

Mr Travers Humphreys applied for bail for Wilde on the ground that he knew the warrant was being applied for on Friday afternoon but made no attempt to leave London. He had no intention of leaving the country, and he was the only person who could properly instruct solicitor and counsel. Sir John Bridge said it was not a case for bail and the prisoners were removed in custody."

In other words, by my reading, a clear suggestion that a charge of sodomy, or, at the very least, an attempt to commit sodomy, neither of which were, by my definition "petty" misdemeanours (and sodomy was a felony offence), might be brought. Thus justifying the magistrate in refusing bail.

[David Orsam]

Now, I did have a lot more to say on the topic of Oscar Wilde - and indeed was planning to start a new thread entitled "Tumblety Goes Wilde" - but, on reflection, and given recent events in this forum, it might be best to let this subject (which seems to be quite inflammatory) die. And we are going round in circles on it in any event. I now need some time to re-write these posts into an article (and I have another long article on a Tumbelty related subject to write up) - posting on these boards takes up a huge amount of one's time - so to the extent I have more to say on the Wilde example, or anything else on Tumblety's bail, I will include it in that article.

Thanks to everyone for their contributions to this topic, for reading and understanding my long posts, and I hope that if my article ever does get published you will enjoy it.