Would Tumblety Have Assumed That He Was Being Followed?

[GUT]

Trevor doesn't understand the word discretionary.


He quotes it over and over again but then says it means the Magistrate could not possibly have granted bail.

Am I the only one confused by this logic?

[Trevor Marriott]

I know why you wanted to mention Lord Brampton's message but, unfortunately for you, his message (which was not even in existence in 1888) was only directed to the police in respect of police bail and had nothing to do with the grounds of a magistrate for refusing bail.

You clearly don't read my posts thoroughly

Being charged with a misdemeanour of the type that Tumblety was charged with meant that it was highly likely, if not a certainty, that if he had applied for bail at his remand hearing it would have been granted by the magistrate due to the terms of the 1848 Indictable Offences Act.

You are wrong yet again. As you know, but seem to have forgotten the magistrates had a discretionary power to grant bail at the first appearance and before committal, but they also had the power to refuse bail outright.

That refusal would have been as a result of a persons antecedents having been considered and those antecedents deemed suitable or unsuitable for granting or refusing bail coupled with any representations made to the court by the police these grounds to be considered

Likely to abscond
No Fixed residence
No suitable recognizance's at that time before the court,personal or surety
Interference to witnesses (before committal)
Likely to commit further offences

You have so far failed to accept that these would be more than adequate grounds for the magistrates to remand him as at least 3 applied directly to Tumblety.

Now I suggest you go away, and sit quietly and get your head round all of this it is quite simple to understand. Forget about police bail, forget about the Indictable offences Act. Just concentrate on what I have written above and I hope in a short time you will concur with me on these points, but I wont hold my breath.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[David Orsam]

In the case of Tumblety as he was arrested on a warrant he would not have been considered for police bail but taken before a magistrate.

I know he wouldn't have been considered for police bail which is why I was saying that it is pointless for you to be setting out the rules for police bail.

The point of my mentioning Lord Bramptons message was to highlight the grounds for refusing bail.

I know why you wanted to mention Lord Brampton's message but, unfortunately for you, his message (which was not even in existence in 1888) was only directed to the police in respect of police bail and had nothing to do with the grounds of a magistrate for refusing bail.

I cannot believe you are so naive to think that the grounds the police had for refusing bail as highlighted by Lord Brampton would not have applied to a magistrate also

It's nothing to do with naivety. It is about understanding the criminal law and procedure in England in 1888 which you clearly don't, despite me having explained it you many times.

and this is the crux of Tumbletys first court appearance, put those grounds together and there would have been no chance of him being granted bail at that stage as you have been told but wont accept.

Being charged with a misdemeanour of the type that Tumblety was charged with meant that it was highly likely, if not a certainty, that if he had applied for bail at his remand hearing it would have been granted by the magistrate due to the terms of the 1848 Indictable Offences Act.

[Trevor Marriott]

I'm quite sure I've already dealt with this nonsense Trevor. You are quoting from a postscript to an 'Address to Police Constables on their Duties' which I have no doubt you have taken from the 1912 edition of the Police Code and which was certainly not in existence in 1888 so on the dating alone is completely irrelevant. In any case, he is talking about police bail and police bail only. Thus he says in the preceding paragraph to the one you have quoted (certain parts highlighted by me):

'...it often happens that a Police Inspector or Sergeant has the duty cast upon him to decide whether for a few hours a person arrested and in his custody, charged with an offence punishable by law, shall be kept in custody or released on his recognizance, until in due course of law he is required to appear before a magistrate to answer the charge. Now it is a serious thing to imprison without the order of a magistrate and before trial.'

In the following paragraph he then says:

"I do not feel it necessary to multiply such instances. Assuming it to be thought necessary to detain a person in custody, it should always be remembered that at present he ought not to be treated as a convicted person, and he should be treated with every consideration due to a person so situated, having regard to the charges made against him ; and as soon as possible on the following day he should be taken before a magistrate and charged before him, and henceforth he will be subject to the orders as to bail, etc., of such magistrate ; and the Police have only to obey the magistrate's judicial decision. They will then do so, not under any original authority of the constable to arrest, but as an officer obeying the orders of a court. I abstain from interfering with any magisterial duties."

So he is talking about police bail NOT bail granted by magistrates which, in 1888, as we know was governed by the 1848 Indictable Offences Act so that different principles applied to those applying to police bail.

Please now stop trying to continue arguing with me in an inappropriate thread on argument that was settled a long time ago.

In the case of Tumblety as he was arrested on a warrant he would not have been considered for police bail but taken before a magistrate. The point of my mentioning Lord Bramptons message was to highlight the grounds for refusing bail.

I cannot believe you are so naive to think that the grounds the police had for refusing bail as highlighted by Lord Brampton would not have applied to a magistrate also, and this is the crux of Tumbletys first court appearance, put those grounds together and there would have been no chance of him being granted bail at that stage as you have been told but wont accept.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[David Orsam]

On another note finally regarding the granting of bail if you recall I cited a number of reasons why Tumbety would not have been granted bail to which you and others rejected all but one if my memory serves me right.

Here is another extract from Lord Bramptons speech regarding bail. Although this is directed at the police and with him being one of the highest judges in the land at the times the lower courts would have taken notice of him !!!!

"In coming to a decision many circumstances have to be considered ; among them the general character of the accused, and whether he has a known and fixed place of abode ; for a man of character living in a fixed home would be very unlikely to abscond and forfeit his recognizance. On the other hand, a man arrested whilst committing a serious crime, e.g., a burglary, or a violent breach of the peace, could hardly be left without restraint. So if the crime imputed was in itself one inviting long or serious punishment, e.g., murder, rape, etc., it is unlikely that any Police Officer would under ordinary circumstances take upon himself the responsibility of releasing a man on bail ; for few persons could be trusted not to endeavour to evade by flight charges which would (if proved) involve such serious consequences."

I'm quite sure I've already dealt with this nonsense Trevor. You are quoting from a postscript to an 'Address to Police Constables on their Duties' which I have no doubt you have taken from the 1912 edition of the Police Code and which was certainly not in existence in 1888 so on the dating alone is completely irrelevant. In any case, he is talking about police bail and police bail only. Thus he says in the preceding paragraph to the one you have quoted (certain parts highlighted by me):

'...it often happens that a Police Inspector or Sergeant has the duty cast upon him to decide whether for a few hours a person arrested and in his custody, charged with an offence punishable by law, shall be kept in custody or released on his recognizance, until in due course of law he is required to appear before a magistrate to answer the charge. Now it is a serious thing to imprison without the order of a magistrate and before trial.'

In the following paragraph he then says:

"I do not feel it necessary to multiply such instances. Assuming it to be thought necessary to detain a person in custody, it should always be remembered that at present he ought not to be treated as a convicted person, and he should be treated with every consideration due to a person so situated, having regard to the charges made against him ; and as soon as possible on the following day he should be taken before a magistrate and charged before him, and henceforth he will be subject to the orders as to bail, etc., of such magistrate ; and the Police have only to obey the magistrate's judicial decision. They will then do so, not under any original authority of the constable to arrest, but as an officer obeying the orders of a court. I abstain from interfering with any magisterial duties."

So he is talking about police bail NOT bail granted by magistrates which, in 1888, as we know was governed by the 1848 Indictable Offences Act so that different principles applied to those applying to police bail.

Please now stop trying to continue arguing with me in an inappropriate thread on argument that was settled a long time ago.

[mklhawley]

Well Mike seems to think he was arrested for being the murder

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Exactly, just as the competing newspapers are corroborated by no less than three Scotland Yard officials.

...but it seems to me you've just sabotaged c.d.'s thread.

[David Orsam]

In 1888 with regards to how the criminal justice system operated you are forgetting that after arrest the police could not interview,

I'm not forgetting anything Trevor. I haven't said anything about Tumblety being interviewed. I said that he could have been arrested on suspicion for a felony (murder) without a warrant, compromising documents could have been found on him which led the police to conduct an investigation and obtain a warrant to arrest him for an unrelated misdemeanour.

I accept that between arrest and committal additional evidence may have been gathered and presented at the committal

Amazing. It's just about the first concession I can ever remember you making in any of our exchanges.

So when Tumblety was arrested on warrant for the gross indecency offences they had sufficient evidence to charge, and that charge must have been based on some evidence, what that was we do not know, but the date of the offences tends to show that he may have been the subject of a police operation, and these letters may be nothing more than a smoke screen if they ever existed.

Now you are speaking of ifs buts and maybes. While Tumblety might have been followed by undercover officers over a period of months that seems very unlikely to me - there is certainly no evidence for it - and the fact that the police were able to identify dates for the indecency offences can be very easily and simply explained by the discovery of correspondence on his person and evidence subsequently obtained from witnesses (or victims) of the indecent assaults.

[Trevor Marriott]

You are now trying to bring matters into this thread which have nothing to do with this thread and which you have shown to be completely wrong in a number of other threads.

The point I was making in response to your posts was that Tumblety could have been arrested on suspicion of murder, correspondence could have been found on him, enquiries could have been made as a result, evidence could have been gathered so that there was sufficient prima facie evidence to obtain a warrant to arrest him on a gross indecency and/or indecent assault charge a few days later. I shouldn't need to state that the fact that a magistrate issues a warrant does not mean that the evidence is very strong otherwise every warrant would end in conviction. It's just a prima facie case. Nor does the fact that Tumblety was remanded in custody (possibly for 24 hours only) mean that the case against him was any more than a prima facie case because it might just mean that he was not in a position to pay the required bail at the time of the hearing or the police needed 24 hours to check his sureties. But whether it was strong or not is irrelevant because the police could have put forward a watertight case against Tumblety after finding the correspondence in his possession and his conviction might have been certain from the start but was avoided due to his flight from justice. We just don't know.

And I suppose, bearing in mind the title of this thread, that I should add that I have no idea if Tumblety would have assumed he was being followed.

On another note finally regarding the granting of bail if you recall I cited a number of reasons why Tumbety would not have been granted bail to which you and others rejected all but one if my memory serves me right.

Here is another extract from Lord Bramptons speech regarding bail. Although this is directed at the police and with him being one of the highest judges in the land at the times the lower courts would have taken notice of him !!!!

"In coming to a decision many circumstances have to be considered ; among them the general character of the accused, and whether he has a known and fixed place of abode ; for a man of character living in a fixed home would be very unlikely to abscond and forfeit his recognizance. On the other hand, a man arrested whilst committing a serious crime, e.g., a burglary, or a violent breach of the peace, could hardly be left without restraint. So if the crime imputed was in itself one inviting long or serious punishment, e.g., murder, rape, etc., it is unlikely that any Police Officer would under ordinary circumstances take upon himself the responsibility of releasing a man on bail ; for few persons could be trusted not to endeavour to evade by flight charges which would (if proved) involve such serious consequences."

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

You are now trying to bring matters into this thread which have nothing to do with this thread and which you have shown to be completely wrong in a number of other threads.

The point I was making in response to your posts was that Tumblety could have been arrested on suspicion of murder, correspondence could have been found on him, enquiries could have been made as a result, evidence could have been gathered so that there was sufficient prima facie evidence to obtain a warrant to arrest him on a gross indecency and/or indecent assault charge a few days later. I shouldn't need to state that the fact that a magistrate issues a warrant does not mean that the evidence is very strong otherwise every warrant would end in conviction. It's just a prima facie case. Nor does the fact that Tumblety was remanded in custody (possibly for 24 hours only) mean that the case against him was any more than a prima facie case because it might just mean that he was not in a position to pay the required bail at the time of the hearing or the police needed 24 hours to check his sureties. But whether it was strong or not is irrelevant because the police could have put forward a watertight case against Tumblety after finding the correspondence in his possession and his conviction might have been certain from the start but was avoided due to his flight from justice. We just don't know.

And I suppose, bearing in mind the title of this thread, that I should add that I have no idea if Tumblety would have assumed he was being followed.

In 1888 with regards to how the criminal justice system operated you are forgetting that after arrest the police could not interview, so when making an arrest they either had to have had sufficient evidence for at least a prima faciea case or not. I accept that between arrest and committal additional evidence may have been gathered and presented at the committal

So when Tumblety was arrested on warrant for the gross indecency offences they had sufficient evidence to charge, and that charge must have been based on some evidence, what that was we do not know, but the date of the offences tends to show that he may have been the subject of a police operation, and these letters may be nothing more than a smoke screen if they ever existed.

As you did before you are muddying the waters with if`s but`s and maybes. Which is fine but it doesn't detract from the facts that on the night Kelly was murdered he was in custody.

Now we have explored all these issues in great detail before, and I do not propose to get embroiled in the same arguments yet again.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[David Orsam]

As to the gross indecency offences I see no reason for me to change the facts I have presented to date to show that on the night Kelly was killed he was locked up on remand.

You are now trying to bring matters into this thread which have nothing to do with this thread and which you have shown to be completely wrong in a number of other threads.

The point I was making in response to your posts was that Tumblety could have been arrested on suspicion of murder, correspondence could have been found on him, enquiries could have been made as a result, evidence could have been gathered so that there was sufficient prima facie evidence to obtain a warrant to arrest him on a gross indecency and/or indecent assault charge a few days later. I shouldn't need to state that the fact that a magistrate issues a warrant does not mean that the evidence is very strong otherwise every warrant would end in conviction. It's just a prima facie case. Nor does the fact that Tumblety was remanded in custody (possibly for 24 hours only) mean that the case against him was any more than a prima facie case because it might just mean that he was not in a position to pay the required bail at the time of the hearing or the police needed 24 hours to check his sureties. But whether it was strong or not is irrelevant because the police could have put forward a watertight case against Tumblety after finding the correspondence in his possession and his conviction might have been certain from the start but was avoided due to his flight from justice. We just don't know.

And I suppose, bearing in mind the title of this thread, that I should add that I have no idea if Tumblety would have assumed he was being followed.

[Trevor Marriott]

Mike said that the police were still interested in interviewing Tumblety after he absconded. He didn't, as far as I can see from this thread, say anything about a prior interview.

Well Mike seems to think he was arrested for being the murder

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[David Orsam]

Yes that is right so it rules out Mikes suggestion that he was arrested on or about Nov 7th for the murders and interviewed.

Mike said that the police were still interested in interviewing Tumblety after he absconded. He didn't, as far as I can see from this thread, say anything about a prior interview.

[Trevor Marriott]

That is a very confused post Trevor.

You talk of Tumblety being taken to court "the following day" but you have no idea on what date he was arrested on suspicion on being the Whitechapel Murderer (as newspaper reports suggest he was). After finding incriminating correspondence on him, the police could have had a number of days to investigate the matter, collect evidence on the gross indecency/indecent assault charges by speaking to witnesses and obtain a warrant on the basis of that evidence. We don't actually know what the charges were at the time of his arrest, we only know what he was committed to trial for and the charges (including specific dates) could have been added between his first appearance at the Police Court following his arrest and the Committal hearing.

Newspaper reports and distorted facts go hand in glove with this Ripper mystery,

There would have to have been some evidence to bring charges of gross indecency and that evidence would have to have been strong enough for a remand in custody, and strong enough for a date for a committal to be agreed on. You don't just arrest someone on suspicion and then get them remanded while you try to put a case together.

For him to have been arrested at any time if it ever did happen it has been embellished by those who seek to prop him up as a prime suspect.

The only likely scenario would have been for him to have been found wandering the streets of Whitechapel as were many at that time, and when stopped by the police they could not establish his true identity and arrsted on suspicion If that did happen then we do not know when that took place. But clearly they had nothing on him.

Police action open to them if that did happen !

A prisoner apprehended for homicide or any offence involving fraud or dishonesty, should be searched as soon as practicable after he or she is charged ; and all weapons, valuable property, documents, books, or memoranda taken from him or her, carefully labelled and accurately described in the charge sheet, to be used as evidence if occasion requires, great care being taken both on the way to the station and at the station, that by no artifice, he or she succeeds in destroying, tearing, swallowing, or hiding about the person per anum aut per vaginam anything whatsoever bearing on his or her offence. Money not connected with the offence charged should not be taken from a prisoner.

The prisoner's house, lodgings, and effects should also be searched with the same object, and by two officers if possible.

As to the gross indecency offences I see no reason for me to change the facts I have presented to date to show that on the night Kelly was killed he was locked up on remand.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

I think Mike was answering your question in #16:

"If he had already been arrested and interviewed why would Andrews make that statement ?"

If, as you now say, he could not have been arrested and then interviewed, that would explain why Andrews wanted to interview him would it not?

Yes that is right so it rules out Mikes suggestion that he was arrested on or about Nov 7th for the murders and interviewed.

But the article if accurate quotes Andrews saying he was to be interviewed not arrested and not as a suspect ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[David Orsam]

In case you didn't know the police did not conduct official interviews in 1888.

After an arrest the police were not permitted to question persons arrested except under certain circumstances.

1. To establish the suspects true identity

2. When about to arrest a man without a warrant, and the answer to a particular question may operate in his interest by removing some doubt as to his guilt and so make it unnecessary to arrest him. But great care and discretion are necessary in such cases, to avoid any suggestion of an endeavor to extract an admission from him, and he should be cautioned before the question is put, that he need not answer, and that if he does his answer may be used as evidence against him.

3. If in any exceptional case it should become absolutely necessary for some urgent reason to put a question to a prisoner he should, of course, be cautioned

Extract from Lord Bramptons address to constables 1882

"When, however, a Constable has a warrant to arrest, or is about to arrest a person on his own authority, or has a person in custody for a crime, it is wrong to question such person touching the crime of which he is accused. Neither judge, magistrate nor juryman, can interrogate an accused person—unless he tenders himself as a witness, or require him to answer questions tending to incriminate himself. Much less, then, ought a Constable to do so, whose duty as regards that person is simply to arrest and detain him in safe custody. On arresting a man a Constable ought simply to read his warrant, or tell the accused the nature of the charge upon which he is arrested, leaving it to the person so arrested to say anything or nothing as he pleases. For a Constable to press any accused person to say anything with reference to the crime of which he is accused is very wrong"

I think Mike was answering your question in #16:

"If he had already been arrested and interviewed why would Andrews make that statement ?"

If, as you now say, he could not have been arrested and then interviewed, that would explain why Andrews wanted to interview him would it not?