Tumblety in Holloway

[Chris]

If you have any further questions, send a PM.

No. If you're happy, I'm happy.

[Admin]

The suitable place has already been established and published. An explicit rule system has been created with Major Rules, Minor Rules, Personal Attack policy and Infraction system outlined and when to report a post and how to do it.

If a post violates a rule, report it. If it does not violate a rule, do not report it.

If you have any further questions, send a PM.

[Chris]

As long as the Report Post is actually for a violation of the rules, yes.

I think it would be helpful if - in some suitable place - you could indicate the kind of complaints that people have been making that you don't think were appropriate. Otherwise we'll all be guessing.

[Admin]

As long as the Report Post is actually for a violation of the rules, yes.

[Chris]

Also know that patience for this thread has been exhausted.

Yes, I suspect that's how most of us feel!

I presume you would still rather we reported posts to you instead of retaliating directly?

[Admin]

Once threads are re-opened discussions are free to resume. Please be aware that all infractions have not yet been assessed, those will be completed in the coming days.

Also know that patience for this thread has been exhausted. Many of the report posts received were deemed to be unwarranted. Not all.. but some.

Posters are requested to follow the rules, and follow the rules about reporting posts. If posters are not familiar with the infractions policy and the guidelines for reporting posts, it can be found in Site Rules.

[Chris]

We have received four different report posts based on Tumblety threads in the last three days. The threads were closed to give time to read through the situation and come to a determination. I sincerely doubt there is anyone here who wasn't aware what closing the thread meant.

As stated in the Site Rules, you were not to continue discussion until the thread was re-opened. Every person who was participating in the original argument and continued the argument regarding Tumblety's bail on this thread will receive an infraction.

Does the fact that these threads have now been opened again mean we are now allowed to discuss Tumblety's bail?

If so, I'd suggest that the appropriate place for general discussion would be this thread:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=8811

[Ally]

It is stated in Site Rules that when a thread has been closed by the Admin, that discussion is not to continue on the topic until it has been addressed by the moderator.

We have received four different report posts based on Tumblety threads in the last three days. The threads were closed to give time to read through the situation and come to a determination. I sincerely doubt there is anyone here who wasn't aware what closing the thread meant.

As stated in the Site Rules, you were not to continue discussion until the thread was re-opened. Every person who was participating in the original argument and continued the argument regarding Tumblety's bail on this thread will receive an infraction.

We encourage everyone to read the rules and follow them.

[Chris]

Regarding the idiosyncrasies of the bail process, I recommend a reading of the arrest in Hyde Park, London, on 2nd June 1888 of John Mara, his appearance at Marlborough Street Police Court before Mr. Newton, his fate and the subsequent political debate in the House of Commons.

Thanks - that's interesting. It seems Mara was suspected of a felony (pickpocketing), and the refusal of bail was considered sufficiently controversial that questions were asked in the House of Commons:

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1888/jun/14/law-and-police-metropolis-arrest-of-john

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1888/jun/15/law-and-police-arrest-and-detention-of

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Regarding the idiosyncrasies of the bail process, I recommend a reading of the arrest in Hyde Park, London, on 2nd June 1888 of John Mara, his appearance at Marlborough Street Police Court before Mr. Newton, his fate and the subsequent political debate in the House of Commons.

Regards,

Simon

[John G]

That's right John, and we know when Tracy Greaves, the World's London chief correspondent sent the story-breaking article connecting 'Kumblety' with the Whitechapel murders on Nov 17, he stated they re-arrested him with the law passed after the Babylon exposures, indecent assault and gross indecency.

Mike

Hello Mike,

Thanks for the reply. Am I right in thinking that Littlechild stipulated that Tumblety had been arrested for "unnatural offences"? If so, this appears to be a blanket term which would have included sodomy, a felony. That, of course, raises the possibility that Tumblety could have been denied bail at the remand hearing- because of the possibility of proceeding with felony charges, coupled with the flight risk- but granted bail at committal, when it was decided to proceed with the lesser charge of gross indecency (a misdemeanour). In fact, this would make sense as sodomy was much more difficult to prove, which is why that charge was dropped in the case of Oscar Wilde.

[mklhawley]

That's right John, and we know when Tracy Greaves, the World's London chief correspondent sent the story-breaking article connecting 'Kumblety' with the Whitechapel murders on Nov 17, he stated they re-arrested him with the law passed after the Babylon exposures, indecent assault and gross indecency.

Mike

[John G]

In respect of the Oscar Wilde trial, it may be worth noting that a reason for denying bail at the earlier remand hearings could be that it hadn't been decided at that stage whether he should be brought up on charges of sodomy, which was a felony, or acts of gross indecency, a misdemeanour: he had been arrested on both charges.

In fact, even after the committal hearing the Chief Magistrate, Sir John Bridge, still refused to grant bail, even though by that stage it was decided to proceed with the lesser charge so he was technically obliged to do so. His reasoning was because of the "extreme gravity of the case." See: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...bridge&f=false

Of course, this could have a bearing on Tumblety's case if he was also initially arrested for sodomy (felony) as well as gross indecency (misdemeanour), with it only being decided to proceed with the lesser charge at the committal stage.

[PaulB]

Why, they are identical in almost every way, but hey when I posted that did I expect that it would be readily accepted? No, of course not, after all this is casebook and many that sit here holding court find it hard to accept that Saturday follows Friday

Well, you know, ready acceptance would be a very bad thing. We should always test the evidence, even when it looks solid, so I think the people who question what's said are wise to do so. They probably do know that Saturday follows Friday. It's the one's who just accept anything who probably can't.

[Jonathan H]

That's right, Alice McKenzie.

I was backing up PaulB's astute point that the Annie Farmer alleged assault also was treated as an alibi for Tumblety.

Had he been in custody for Kelly we would have seen the same claim, but we do not.