Would Tumblety Have Assumed That He Was Being Followed?

[Trevor Marriott]

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?

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.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Bridewell]

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.

A prima facie case is one which, if not countered, would result in conviction. "Just" a prima facie case is therefore a contradiction in terms. One of the things magistrates are always wary of is issuing a warrant of any kind without good reason (fishing expeditions).

To return to the subject of the thread, I'm not sure that Tuumblety would have assumed" that he was being followed, but he would have been foolish not to have been aware of the possibility.

It's a shame that SPE no longer posts on this forum because he knows more about this man than anyone.

[David Orsam]

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?

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.

[Mayerling]

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.

Oh, what's the use David...

As far as I can guess the reason I can't see Tumblety taking the initiative of threatening or bribing would-be witnesses is the time element. Even once bail had been set, Tumblety would have to face personal choices of how to constructively set his limited time to work for him. He either concentrates on fleeing, or he starts seeking out the witnesses to confront them and threaten or bribe them. We (of course) might assume that in the latter situation the Doctor might have a kind of advantage that an agreeable witness (one who will take a bribe) is one faster to deal with - a disagreeable witness would be one whom is either going to 1) run to the police; 2) run to his/her stronger friends for help against the threatening doctor; 3) turn out to be the sort who has a handy knife, gun, or weapon available and make the Doctor quickly wish he hadn't been born. My guess is that the Doctor would have quickly considered all these possibilities (especially as he would have known who the witnesses were, and what they were like), and would have rapidly decided what his time option would allow him to do. And since he fled, my guess is that he realized that any involvement with witness tampering was out of the question.

Now (one hopes) back to this thread! PLEASE!!

Jeff

[Bridewell]

A misdemeanour would not have involved committal proceedings as it would have been dealt with in the lower court (Petty Sessions). Just one small point which occurs to me:

Gross Indecency is a misdemeanour punishable (at the time) with up to 2 years imprisonment, with or without hard labour. Between Tumblety's initial arrest and his absconding, however, there must be a possibility that further evidence came to light which was sufficient to prove anal intercourse. If that were the case the charge would be the felonious crime of sodomy - punishable with life imprisonment. The unearthing of such evidence (or even Tumblety's fear that such evidence had been unearthed) would be a strong motivation for flight.

N.B. I am not arguing that such evidence was unearthed - just that it might have been.

[Trevor Marriott]

A misdemeanour would not have involved committal proceedings as it would have been dealt with in the lower court (Petty Sessions). Just one small point which occurs to me:

Gross Indecency is a misdemeanour punishable (at the time) with up to 2 years imprisonment, with or without hard labour. Between Tumblety's initial arrest and his absconding, however, there must be a possibility that further evidence came to light which was sufficient to prove anal intercourse. If that were the case the charge would be the felonious crime of sodomy - punishable with life imprisonment. The unearthing of such evidence (or even Tumblety's fear that such evidence had been unearthed) would be a strong motivation for flight.

N.B. I am not arguing that such evidence was unearthed - just that it might have been.

Gross indecency was an indictable misdemeanor triable only at a higher court than magistrates

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[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

[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.

[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]

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.

[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]

"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.

[c.d.]

Hello Paul,

An excellent post and very well reasoned.

c.d.

[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?

[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