Would Tumblety Have Assumed That He Was Being Followed?

[Errata]

Tumblety's character, his life experiences, his nature is what decides whether or not he thought he was being followed. It might be paranoia, it might be an assumption based on his criminal past. It probably is not based on him catching a cop following him.

His fear would not be based on something that happened. It would be based on what could happen, and what could happen was really bad. Bad enough to cause him to run. Fear makes us hyper vigilant. I feel like it's a safe assumption that as a con man, he was probably more aware of what was going on around him that the average guy. Crank up the fear, rightly or wrongly, and I think someone like that assumes they are being monitored. I think the consequences of being caught are too dire that someone can afford to assume they are not being watched.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor I have understood the Act perfectly well and if you are going to make statements of that nature at least back it up with something sensible.

I have absolutely no idea what you think you have demonstrated with those three passages of the Act. Of course the magistrate had the power to remand prisoners before the committal hearing and was able to remand on bail, which is all it said. I've always made perfectly clear that, pre-committal, a remand was technically discretionary for all misdemeanours but that in practice bail applications for misdemeanours (especially those not specifically referred to in the Act) were almost always unchallenged and successful (for the reason I have stated on many occasions).

Which you have wrongly interpreted

Thankfully, we don't need you to help us interpret the Act because we have access to textbooks of the period to assist us. I've referred to Seymour & Harris' 'Principles of the Criminal Law' on a number of occasions but perhaps seeing will be believing. The below is from the 1886 edition which was the current edition when Tumblety was before the magistrate. Please note the very last sentence of the passage and the absence of any mention of a distinction between remand and committal - because that is how bail for the type of offence Tumblety was charged with was regarded in practice.

The demonstration is complete with explanations it is all there in black and white ! Do you agree of disagree with the explanations or is the act itself wrong? Go back and follow what I have written and you will see it makes perfect sense and understanding.

The contents of Seymour Hicks is not legislation where as the act is.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor I have understood the Act perfectly well and if you are going to make statements of that nature at least back it up with something sensible.

I have absolutely no idea what you think you have demonstrated with those three passages of the Act. Of course the magistrate had the power to remand prisoners before the committal hearing and was able to remand on bail, which is all it said. I've always made perfectly clear that, pre-committal, a remand was technically discretionary for all misdemeanours but that in practice bail applications for misdemeanours (especially those not specifically referred to in the Act) were almost always unchallenged and successful (for the reason I have stated on many occasions).

Thankfully, we don't need you to help us interpret the Act because we have access to textbooks of the period to assist us. I've referred to Seymour & Harris' 'Principles of the Criminal Law' on a number of occasions but perhaps seeing will be believing. The below is from the 1886 edition which was the current edition when Tumblety was before the magistrate. Please note the very last sentence of the passage and the absence of any mention of a distinction between remand and committal - because that is how bail for the type of offence Tumblety was charged with was regarded in practice.

The last sentence does not specify when a magistrate should grant bail does it ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[David Orsam]

Go back and follow what I have written and you will see it makes perfect sense and understanding.

I have read everything you have written Trevor (as well as having read the Act many times) and can say with some degree of confidence that what you have written does not contain any sense at all.

[David Orsam]

The last sentence does not specify when a magistrate should grant bail does it ?

Exactly! That's the point.

[Trevor Marriott]

Exactly! That's the point.

So if you read the act as I have set it out with the explanations the magistrate has the right to remand a person in custody to await the commencement of a committal at the first appearance if the police are not in a position to do a committal at that stage.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

What are the "misdemeanors enumerated below"?

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

So if you read the act as I have set it out with the explanations the magistrate has the right to remand a person in custody to await the commencement of a committal at the first appearance if the police are not in a position to do a committal at that stage.

No-one is disputing that Trevor. Look at my "Tumblety's Bail: A Fresh Perspective" post back on 9 April 2015 where I said:

"Now, while some of the textbooks I have cited don’t make the distinction between pre and post committal bail, it is, of course, true that the Indictable Offences Act does not say that a prisoner has an automatic right to bail before committal (i.e. before the examinations were taken in writing)."

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

What are the "misdemeanors enumerated below"?

Two lines below the phrase you have quoted (where it says "These misdemeanors are:-...")

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

My apologies.

I completely misread the paragraph.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

My apologies.

I completely misread the paragraph.

No problem.

[mklhawley]

Tumblety's character, his life experiences, his nature is what decides whether or not he thought he was being followed. It might be paranoia, it might be an assumption based on his criminal past. It probably is not based on him catching a cop following him.

His fear would not be based on something that happened. It would be based on what could happen, and what could happen was really bad. Bad enough to cause him to run. Fear makes us hyper vigilant. I feel like it's a safe assumption that as a con man, he was probably more aware of what was going on around him that the average guy. Crank up the fear, rightly or wrongly, and I think someone like that assumes they are being monitored. I think the consequences of being caught are too dire that someone can afford to assume they are not being watched.

Hi Errata,

By studying the actions of Tumblety throughout his life, I'm not so sure it's a fear issue. This man led two lives, a public one he attempted to promote and a private one he attempted to hide. He had the courage to travel constantly, even internationally, with a business that required daily personal contact with strangers of all flavors. Tumblety must have exuded confidence in order to have been successful in his chosen profession as an Indian Herb Doctor …He was a narcissist and an aggressive narcissist at that. This is the Hare Psychopathy checklist for traits of an aggressive narcissist-

1. Glibness/superficial charm
2. Grandiose sense of self-worth
3. Pathological lying
4. Cunning/manipulative
5. Lack of remorse or guilt
6. Shallow affect (expressing emotions deceptively)
7. Callous/lack of empathy
8. Failure to accept responsibility for own actions

Here are Hotchkiss' seven deadly sins of narcissism-
1. Shamelessness
2. Magical thinking
3. Arrogance
4. Envy
5. Entitlement-DEFIANCE OF THEIR WILL IS A NARCISSISTIC INJURY THAT CAN TRIGGER NARCISSISTIC RAGE
6. Exploitation
7. Bad boundaries (societal norms do not pertain to them).

“When reduced to the subdued state NA (Narcissist-Aggressive)- this individual strongly resembles the self-flaunting UNAGGRESSIVE narcissistic personage N. Of course, he "plays the game", and with his hyperactivity and tendency toward "hypersexuality" he would involve himself in many compulsive dependencies, usually as the subjugator but sometimes as the subjugated individual. As is often the case in the dependency of subjugation, he may become overtly sadistic, especially in frustrating and in playing on the emotions of his subjugated companions, of which there may be several at one time. And he too, if opposed, seeks retribution in the self-justified vindictive triumph. This individual when frustrated can be incited to a narcissistic rage, an aggressive-vindictive rage, or a combined narcissistic-aggressive rage (NA rage).” (Benis A.M. (1985, 2nd edition 2008): Chaps. 5 & 6, in Toward Self & Sanity: on the genetic origins of the human character. Psychological Dimensions, New York, pp. 53-54, 116-122.)


This is classic Tumblety, and he would not have been threatened by Scotland Yard's suspicions, he would have been angered that they had the gall to challenge him.

Sincerely,

Mike

[c.d.]

The question I would ask is whether there are any known examples from the period of the Metropolitan Police (i.e. Scotland Yard) keeping a suspect for any crime (outside of terrorist offences) under surveillance.

Why wouldn't they? That would seem like a basic police procedure and just plain common sense.

c.d.

[c.d.]

It's not like London was the only city in the world that had prostitutes that he could kill. Why take a chance on killing Kelly if he believed that he was being followed? Yes, you can argue that people do irrational and stupid things but...

c.d.

[Errata]

This is classic Tumblety, and he would not have been threatened by Scotland Yard's suspicions, he would have been angered that they had the gall to challenge him.

Sincerely,

Mike

And I believe all of that, though Narcissism is such a mystery in so many ways that I'm not sure anyone boils down to that checklist, and that checklist alone.

But we all fear, unless our amygdala is crapped out. We are all driven either by hope, fear, or we are not driven at all. And the core of narcissism is paranoia. Narcissists are driven by terrible fear and the belief that they have enemies who want to destroy them. Enemies make them feel powerful (every hero needs a villain), and explains their failures. And nothing unleashes paranoia like challenging the narcissistic delusion. And the entire disorder is developed to mask or answer consuming fears of inadequacy or failure, or in response to a major trauma. Narcissists are built, not born. And they don't acknowledge these fears, but they are there. Usually very powerful.

I'm sure he would be furious at being challenged. But he would have to come up with a reason WHY they were challenging him. Why they would dare. And if he can't admit his mistakes, and narcissists can't, then he has to assume malice. He has to assume they are out to get him. Or someone else is and set him up, or turned him in. And then he has to wonder what will be next. He would see it as "being careful". Protecting himself. In reality it's the core of his disorder.