Would Tumblety Have Assumed That He Was Being Followed?

[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]

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.

[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]

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 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

[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?

[GUT]

But he also talks about what the police told (or should have told) the Court but doesn't for one second insider what the defense may have saud about these issues.

[David Orsam]

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.

Well the last part of that doesn't make sense. A magistrate did not have power to refuse bail "outright" for a misdemeanour of the type Tumblety was charged with. It was compulsory upon committal and, that being so, it was pointless to refuse it at the remand hearing. This was the practice of magistrates on a day to day basis in 1888 which why I said it was highly likely if not a certainty that it would have been granted on application at the remand hearing. There would have been no reason to refuse it and if you look at what happened in actual hearings in the 1880s you would see that such applications were invariably granted.

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

This is a list of grounds you have invented and applied to the nineteenth century without any evidential basis. The first two and the last one are irrelevant bearing in mind that bail was compulsory on committal so it was utterly pointless to apply those grounds to a prisoner at remand (so they were not, in fact, applied). The third assumes bail has already been granted or a willingness to grant it. The only one that would be of any relevance is interference of witnesses before committal but you have simply made this one up, in response to me having explained the law to you, in order to try and keep Tumblety in prison and, in any case, there is no reason why the prosecution would have been able to persuade a magistrate that Tumblety was likely to interfere with any witnesses before committal and, in reality, they would have had no chance in succeeding with such a ridiculous application.

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.

You can certainly forget about police bail but you can't forget about the Indictable Offences Act. If you do, you will continue to make the mistakes that you keep making. And, in any case, by saying that magistrates had a discretionary power on remand you are, in fact, making reference to the very Act that you are telling me to forget!

Now, I refuse to disrupt c.d.'s thread (not Mike's!) any longer and I am not going to discuss this subject with you further in this thread. I suggest you carefully read my article "Tumblety Jail Break!" in Ripperologist 144 (June 2015 issue) in which everything is clearly set out and then, if you really want to challenge anything in it, start a new thread but this one is supposed be about whether Tumblety assumed he was being followed.

[Trevor Marriott]

Well the last part of that doesn't make sense. A magistrate did not have power to refuse bail "outright" for a misdemeanour of the type Tumblety was charged with. It was compulsory upon committal and, that being so, it was pointless to refuse it at the remand hearing. This was the practice of magistrates on a day to day basis in 1888 which why I said it was highly likely if not a certainty that it would have been granted on application at the remand hearing. There would have been no reason to refuse it and if you look at what happened in actual hearings in the 1880s you would see that such applications were invariably granted.



This is a list of grounds you have invented and applied to the nineteenth century without any evidential basis. The first two and the last one are irrelevant bearing in mind that bail was compulsory on committal so it was utterly pointless to apply those grounds to a prisoner at remand (so they were not, in fact, applied). The third assumes bail has already been granted or a willingness to grant it. The only one that would be of any relevance is interference of witnesses before committal but you have simply made this one up, in response to me having explained the law to you, in order to try and keep Tumblety in prison and, in any case, there is no reason why the prosecution would have been able to persuade a magistrate that Tumblety was likely to interfere with any witnesses before committal and, in reality, they would have had no chance in succeeding with such a ridiculous application.



You can certainly forget about police bail but you can't forget about the Indictable Offences Act. If you do, you will continue to make the mistakes that you keep making. And, in any case, by saying that magistrates had a discretionary power on remand you are, in fact, making reference to the very Act that you are telling me to forget!

Now, I refuse to disrupt c.d.'s thread (not Mike's!) any longer and I am not going to discuss this subject with you further in this thread. I suggest you carefully read my article "Tumblety Jail Break!" in Ripperologist 144 (June 2015 issue) in which everything is clearly set out and then, if you really want to challenge anything in it, start a new thread but this one is supposed be about whether Tumblety assumed he was being followed.

There is no need to challenge anything the facts speak for themselves from my perspective. The grounds for refusal are quite plain and simple common sense grounds, and this is where you are missing the point !

As to what the defence might say well what could they say other than to accept some of them.

Did he have a fixed residence- No he lived in lodgings
Did he have any family ties in the UK- No
Was he a flight risk -Yes
Was he likely to receive a lengthy term of imprisonment if convicted- Yes
Was he likely to interfere with witnesses if released and prevent them from coming to a trial - Yes, and this is one of the main reasons that bail was rarely given in these type of cases before committal to prevent interference
Could he at that time produce sureties- that is questionable but given what we now know the answer must be no.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[mklhawley]

Did he have any family ties in the UK- No

Sister lived in Liverpool

Was he a flight risk -Yes

They had no proof at that time.


Your conjecture is meaningless, anyways, because we know full well no less than three Scotland Yard officials -Anderson, Andrews, and Littlechild - considered him a suspect AFTER the Kelly murder. All three of these officials believed the Kelly murder a Jack the Ripper murder.

Sorry Trevor.

[GUT]

Where on earth is the Evidence that he was likely to interfere with Witnesses.

Where is the Evidence at the time, rather than looking back, that he was likely to abscond.

[Trevor Marriott]

Sister lived in Liverpool



They had no proof at that time.

The grounds for refusal are proof enough that he was a flight risk


Your conjecture is meaningless, anyways, because we know full well no less than three Scotland Yard officials -Anderson, Andrews, and Littlechild - considered him a suspect AFTER the Kelly murder. All three of these officials believed the Kelly murder a Jack the Ripper murder.

Sorry Trevor.

After the murder ! We are not concerned about what happened after the murder. We are concerned as to whether he would have been granted bail and be free to have committed the Kelly murder. Not that he committed any of the other murders.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Mayerling]

Can we return to the issue of whether or not Doc T suspected he was being followed? Like GUT I'd like to return to this issue.

Personally I suspect he would have felt so - even without being arrested (FOR WHATEVER REASON) - due to his self-awareness of his own actions and whether or not they might cause police surveillance.

Jeff

P.S.

GUT I have seen no reason to suspect Tumblety was attempting to interfere with witnesses. However, if his arrest was solely on the morals issue, whomever were his partners in such matters probably would have been tipped off by him as a friendly matter - in that case it is interference, but not like he threatened them or bribed them.

Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

Can we return to the issue of whether or not Doc T suspected he was being followed? Like GUT I'd like to return to this issue.

Personally I suspect he would have felt so - even without being arrested (FOR WHATEVER REASON) - due to his self-awareness of his own actions and whether or not they might cause police surveillance.

Jeff

P.S.

GUT I have seen no reason to suspect Tumblety was attempting to interfere with witnesses. However, if his arrest was solely on the morals issue, whomever were his partners in such matters probably would have been tipped off by him as a friendly matter - in that case it is interference, but not like he threatened them or bribed them.

Jeff

I am going to vacate this thread now but before doing so I would point out that Tumblety would have been aware of the names of the victims at the point of charge. So if he had been granted bail he could have easily have contacted them and perhaps even paid them off, or made threats towards them. That is why given such concerns they would not have granted him bail before committal.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[PaulB]

I am going to vacate this thread now but before doing so I would point out that Tumblety would have been aware of the names of the victims at the point of charge. So if he had been granted bail he could have easily have contacted them and perhaps even paid them off, or made threats towards them. That is why given such concerns they would not have granted him bail before committal.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

As a matter of interest, surely anyone charged with a crime and released on bail could pay off, intimidate, or otherwise do whatever they could to silence a witness to or vicim of a crime? Somewhere along the line I assume someone assesses the probability of the person charged doing this. So where is the probability that Tumblety would interfere with a witness or witnesses?