Would Tumblety Have Assumed That He Was Being Followed?

[David Orsam]

As there is little hope of this thread going back on topic, a few factual corrections and clarifications.

Firstly, we don't have the arrest warrants for either individual but we know that Tumblety was committed for trial on four counts of gross indecency and four counts of indecent assault while Oscar While was committed for conspiring and agreeing to commit and procure to be committed certain acts of gross indecency as well as a separate offence of committing acts of gross indecency. So not "the same offences".

Secondly, the magistrate in the Wilde case declined to give his reasons for refusing bail so any reasons anyone offers are speculation. Normally, for a prisoner charged with misdemeanour in the nineteenth century and believed to be a flight risk, the way a magistrate would attempt to ensure his appearance at trial would be to set a very high bail. That was the whole point of having sureties. It was the whole point of the bail system.

Thirdly, it was very rare in the nineteenth century to have contested bail applications for any form of misdemeanour, especially not a misdemeanour for which bail legally had to be granted on committal.

Fourthly, whatever happened in the (unique and unprecedented) Oscar Wilde case in 1892 cannot possibly have affected a magistrate's bail decision four years earlier.

Fifthly, Wilde was eventually granted bail following an application to a judge in chambers and was released on bail.

[Trevor Marriott]

Thanks, that makes it clearer, but I am not sure why Tumblety's antecedents would have warranted a rejection of bail. Do you know of any prior appearance in a British court on similar charges - or any charges, for that matter - that would suggest he was likely to do anything that would justify his bail application being turned down? In the case of Wilde, is it not the true that he was given the opportunity to flee the country, as Somerset had been at the time of Cleveland Street, and that his friends urged and expected him to do so? I am given to understand that friends were shocked when he stayed to slug it out in court; the authorities could have lived with him fleeing before he’d been arrested, but to have allowed him to do it afterwards and whilst on bail would have been too great an embarrassment. Furthermore, when Wilde faced the stark reality of his position and his bubble of protective arrogance burst, was he not then a serious flight risk. Tumblety was never in that category, was he?

I think the whole issue around flight risk and all the other grounds as i have said before revolves around belief. Based on the facts previously provided that he had no fixed residence, and was not a UK citizen and by the evidence they had to hand they clearly thought he would get convicted and sentenced to a lengthy term of imprisonment. All good an valid reasons for him to abscond. The same reasons that operate in police stations and courts today when considering the granting of bail.

They were entitled to put those altogether and put those before the magistrates at the first remand hearing as objections. Thus forming a total belief that he would abscond. It was then up to the magistrates to accept or reject one, some, or all and bail him.

I dont think I can make it any clearer for people to understand.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[mklhawley]

There is no evidence that they did object. But you have to accept that as you say the police had the right to object to bail and clearly would have in cases such as this, and in particular as Tumbleteys antecedents would have met the criteria

And it is also an assumption that Scotland Yard knew these antecedents, especially when he did indeed have a family member - a sister - living in Liverpool. The only thing they knew about Tumblety's North American past was what William Pinkerton told Shore years earlier, that he was a strange cookie and had a hatred of women; not that he was a flight risk.

[PaulB]

There is no evidence that they did object. But you have to accept that as you say the police had the right to object to bail and clearly would have in cases such as this, and in particular as Tumbleteys antecedents would have met the criteria they would have used for the objections, and yes the court could overrule the police objections for example the suspect and his legal team could have made a bail application perhaps with bail in his own recognizance, which was objected outright by the police. However the magistrate could have overruled the police and given a suspect bail subject to additional sureties being found, or the court could have simply disregarded all of the objections put before them.

I go back to Oscar Wilde arrested for the same offences. He had sureties willing to stand for him at all the stages of his arraignment but the courts refused him bail on one singular objection, they considered him a flight risk. The rest of his antecedents were not questionable by the police.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Thanks, that makes it clearer, but I am not sure why Tumblety's antecedents would have warranted a rejection of bail. Do you know of any prior appearance in a British court on similar charges - or any charges, for that matter - that would suggest he was likely to do anything that would justify his bail application being turned down? In the case of Wilde, is it not the true that he was given the opportunity to flee the country, as Somerset had been at the time of Cleveland Street, and that his friends urged and expected him to do so? I am given to understand that friends were shocked when he stayed to slug it out in court; the authorities could have lived with him fleeing before he’d been arrested, but to have allowed him to do it afterwards and whilst on bail would have been too great an embarrassment. Furthermore, when Wilde faced the stark reality of his position and his bubble of protective arrogance burst, was he not then a serious flight risk. Tumblety was never in that category, was he?

[Trevor Marriott]

Interestingly, William Shugg's initials are only in front of one of the young men, Albert Fisher on the November 1888 indictment. I believe this means Fisher was the only boy to come to police court.

Sincerely,

Mike

Just to clarify

William Shugg was the foreman of the grand jury

All of the cases due to be heard at the old bailey would first be put before a grand jury which sat on the opening morning of the sessions. It was their role to examine each case to ensure there was sufficient evidence to put before the jury. If so, this was known as a “true bill”. Cases they felt did not meet the necessary criteria would be thrown out, marked as “Not found”, and the prisoner released.

Tumblety's indictment papers were marked "true bill" and signed by William Sugg, the grand jury foreman, after which they would have been handed to the court, in readiness for Tumblety's trial before the jury.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

But aren't you just making the same argument in a different way? Surely what you are saying applies to any and every bail application - there is always the option for the police to object to bail (and I assume the magistrate had the power to overrule the police objection if he considered that it wasn't soundly based), but is there in this case any evidence at all that they would have/did object? As said, just because they could object doesn't mean they did object, so is there anything solid - and evidence at all - on which you argue that they did object?

There is no evidence that they did object. But you have to accept that as you say the police had the right to object to bail and clearly would have in cases such as this, and in particular as Tumbleteys antecedents would have met the criteria they would have used for the objections, and yes the court could overrule the police objections for example the suspect and his legal team could have made a bail application perhaps with bail in his own recognizance, which was objected outright by the police. However the magistrate could have overruled the police and given a suspect bail subject to additional sureties being found, or the court could have simply disregarded all of the objections put before them.

I go back to Oscar Wilde arrested for the same offences. He had sureties willing to stand for him at all the stages of his arraignment but the courts refused him bail on one singular objection, they considered him a flight risk. The rest of his antecedents were not questionable by the police.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[mklhawley]

Interestingly, William Shugg's initials are only in front of one of the young men, Albert Fisher on the November 1888 indictment. I believe this means Fisher was the only boy to come to police court.

Sincerely,

Mike

[PaulB]

No but when the police make objections to bail they cannot prove that for example he would interfere with witnesses, unless the witness had concerns that he might try to find them. They may have no direct evidence before them to show that he would abscond but the police are obliged to put to the court their beliefs based on the given circumstances of the offence, the seriousness of the offence, and any other relevant matters. It is then for the court to accept or reject after listening to any objection to these out forward by his lawyer.

The more reasons put forward by the police to oppose bail the more likelihood they have of getting a remand.

In the case of Tumblety they only had to believe he may abscond and that would suffice. It is not relevant that he may get bail after the committal but as with the case of Oscar Wilde even that cannot be guaranteed.

If the magistrates court had told him that bail would be granted after committal if he came up with sureties but could not come up with any then he would have stayed in custody until his trial.

www.trevormarrriott.co.uk

But aren't you just making the same argument in a different way? Surely what you are saying applies to any and every bail application - there is always the option for the police to object to bail (and I assume the magistrate had the power to overrule the police objection if he considered that it wasn't soundly based), but is there in this case any evidence at all that they would have/did object? As said, just because they could object doesn't mean they did object, so is there anything solid - and evidence at all - on which you argue that they did object?

[c.d.]

Hello Paul,

An excellent post and very well reasoned.

c.d.

[PaulB]

"I know that there are arguments on both sides of the question as to whether Tumblety would have been out on bail in time to kill Mary Kelly (and let's not go there again with this thread)."

I certainly am glad that I put this admonition in my initial post when I started this thread. God know what direction it would have taken otherwise.

c.d.

I think the answer to your question is that Tumblety would have to have been very dim if he didn't think the police would have had him under surveillance. Therefore, he would have acted with extreme caution. But it's always dangerous to assume that people behave sensibly in such circumstances. Drink, drugs, bravado, stupidity - all make people do things which are stupid, just look at today's MPs and assorted celebrities! And let's not forget that large file that Littlechild says the police had on him; whether that concerned his sexual behaviour, medical business, or alleged Fenian involvement, past experience may have suggested that he was a person of interest and therefore watched, If so, he nevertheless took the risk which led to the charges brought against him. Maybe reviewing Tumblety's past career would indicate whether he behaved irresponsibly or not.

[Trevor Marriott]

Thanks. What still isn't clear to me is what real objections were there to Tumblety being granted bail? I mean, it's one thing to say that Tumblety could have interferred with victims or witnesses in order to get them to change or withdraw their testimony, but there has to be some reason for you or I to suggest that he would actually do that. This goes for all the reasons bail may have been refused. What I seem to have lost in all the argument is what makes one or more of these possibilities more likely than not to have applied i Tumblety's case.

No but when the police make objections to bail they cannot prove that for example he would interfere with witnesses, unless the witness had concerns that he might try to find them. They may have no direct evidence before them to show that he would abscond but the police are obliged to put to the court their beliefs based on the given circumstances of the offence, the seriousness of the offence, and any other relevant matters. It is then for the court to accept or reject after listening to any objection to these out forward by his lawyer.

The more reasons put forward by the police to oppose bail the more likelihood they have of getting a remand.

In the case of Tumblety they only had to believe he may abscond and that would suffice. It is not relevant that he may get bail after the committal but as with the case of Oscar Wilde even that cannot be guaranteed.

If the magistrates court had told him that bail would be granted after committal if he came up with sureties but could not come up with any then he would have stayed in custody until his trial.

https://www.trevormarrriott.co.uk

[PaulB]

You are forgetting or conveniently forgetting that all the magistrates needed to be satisfied about was any one of those previously mentioned grounds for not granting bail at the remand stage for them to remand him in custody until committal. Only one !!!! Doesnt matter which one

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

This is sort of what I'd appreciate clarification. I appreciate that there are any number of reasons why bail might have been refused, and I appreciate that only one of those reasons need be necessary for that to happen, but for which of those reasons do we have any evidence that Tumblety was denied bail? It seems to me that you are saying that because bail could have been denied for this, that or the other, it was denied.

[c.d.]

"I know that there are arguments on both sides of the question as to whether Tumblety would have been out on bail in time to kill Mary Kelly (and let's not go there again with this thread)."

I certainly am glad that I put this admonition in my initial post when I started this thread. God know what direction it would have taken otherwise.

c.d.

[PaulB]

Yes you are right but the interference issue is just one of a number of grounds for refusal in the grand scheme of things.Its commonly called loading the dice against the suspect The more objections to bail the more likely a court will order a remand in custody.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Thanks. What still isn't clear to me is what real objections were there to Tumblety being granted bail? I mean, it's one thing to say that Tumblety could have interferred with victims or witnesses in order to get them to change or withdraw their testimony, but there has to be some reason for you or I to suggest that he would actually do that. This goes for all the reasons bail may have been refused. What I seem to have lost in all the argument is what makes one or more of these possibilities more likely than not to have applied i Tumblety's case.

[Trevor Marriott]

Absolutely, the prosecution would have needed an extremely good reason even to make such a claim on a ("minor") misdemeanour offence, let alone for the magistrate to accept it. Trevor's argument that because Tumblety knew the names of the witnesses meant he was going to threaten or bribe them is a joke. In desperation, he has invented the notion of bail being refused due to the possibility of such threats "before committal" because he now knows that Tumblety legally had to be released on committal, when he could have made exactly the same threats (or bribes). But the whole thing is nonsense because if the police seriously believed that Tumblety (or someone on his behalf) would threaten their witnesses they could simply have put them under police protection. It wasn't a bail issue and the simple fact is that for misdemeanour offences of the type Tumblety was charged with you just don't find contested bail applications during the 1880s for the simple reason that it was accepted by everyone involved that bail would be granted for those offences at both remand and committal hearings.

Sorry to be continuing off topic.

You are forgetting or conveniently forgetting that all the magistrates needed to be satisfied about was any one of those previously mentioned grounds for not granting bail at the remand stage for them to remand him in custody until committal. Only one !!!! Doesnt matter which one

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk