Jack the Ripper-The Secret Police Files

[John G]

That is his interpretation of that record
He accepts a 7 day remand

Go back and read one of my recent post which shows that a 7 day remand based on a nov 7th appearance take the date to nov 13th whereas a nov 8th appearance takes the date to nov 14

Perhaps you you start believing me !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hello Trevor,

But this point is incidental. After he was remanded in custody on 7 November he would have been entitled to be released as soon as his bail conditions were met, regardless of the period of remand.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello Trevor,

But this point is incidental. After he was remanded in custody on 7 November he would have been entitled to be released as soon as his bail conditions were met, regardless of the period of remand.

That's if he was given bail everything both legal and otherwise points to him not

Another pointer is that had he been given bàil why did he not abscond because he would have had 7 days to do that.

You can't abscond if you are locked up in jail, but you can as soon as you are released

I have said all that needs to be said both to you and orsam on this topic if you and he want to believe he appeared at court on nov 7th then thats your perogative the same applies to others all we are doing is going round in circles
For the tumblety proponents they will say he was on bail because it keeps another suspect alive

To myself and hopefully others with no hidden agendas will apply a common sense approach and asses and evaluate all the facts and come to an unbiased decision

On a final note if bail had have been granted 7 days from the 7th would have taken the date to nov 13th !!!!!! Not nov 14

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[John G]

That's if he was given bail everything both legal and otherwise points to him not

Another pointer is that had he been given bàil why did he not abscond because he would have had 7 days to do that.

You can't abscond if you are locked up in jail, but you can as soon as you are released

I have said all that needs to be said both to you and orsam on this topic if you and he want to believe he appeared at court on nov 7th then thats your perogative the same applies to others all we are doing is going round in circles
For the tumblety proponents they will say he was on bail because it keeps another suspect alive

To myself and hopefully others with no hidden agendas will apply a common sense approach and asses and evaluate all the facts and come to an unbiased decision

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

It's possible that he didn't abscond after the remand hearing because he needed time to make the necessary arrangements. He also would have realized that he would be entitled to bail after the committal hearing so there would be no urgency at that point.

I'm afraid the evidence is overwhelming that he was granted bail at the remand hearing. As noted, there clearly was a school of thought that believed bail to be an automatic right as early as the remand hearing, I.e because such a right was implied by the Indictable Offences Act. In any event, to deny bail at the remand hearing would be little more than a vexatious act, on the part of the magistrate, considering that there was no doubt as to bail entitlement at the committal hearing.

Unfortunately, apart from the Wilde case no one as been able to cite a single example of an accused being denied bail, at the remand hearing, in respect of the category of misdemeanour for which Tumblety was charged. And, as discussed earlier, the only logical explanation for the denial of bail in this case is that the learned magistrate was under the misapprehension that Wilde had been charged with a felony or, alternatively, with a type of misdemeanour for which bail could be legitimately denied at committal, such as an attempted felony. Otherwise, the inescapable conclusion is that the magistrate intentionally acted unlawfully.

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=John G;346031]It's possible that he didn't abscond after the remand hearing because he needed time to make the necessary arrangements. He also would have realized that he would be entitled to bail after the committal hearing so there would be no urgency at that point.

I'm afraid the evidence is overwhelming that he was granted bail at the remand hearing. As noted, there clearly was a school of thought that believed bail to be an automatic right as early as the remand hearing, I.e because such a right was implied by the Indictable Offences Act. In any event, to deny bail at the remand hearing would be little more than a vexatious act, on the part of the magistrate, considering that there was no doubt as to bail entitlement at the committal hearing.

Unfortunately, apart from the Wilde case no one as been able to cite a single example of an accused being denied bail, at the remand hearing, in respect of the category of misdemeanour for which Tumblety was charged. And, as discussed earlier, the only logical explanation for the denial of bail in this case is that the learned magistrate was under the misapprehension that Wilde had been charged with a felony or, alternatively, with a type of misdemeanour for which bail could be legitimately denied at committal, such as an attempted felony. Otherwise, the inescapable conclusion is that the magistrate intentionally acted unlawfully.[/QUOTE

How could a magistrate act unlawfully if he had a discretionary power to refuse bail for indictable misdemeanours ?

[John G]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;346034]

It's possible that he didn't abscond after the remand hearing because he needed time to make the necessary arrangements. He also would have realized that he would be entitled to bail after the committal hearing so there would be no urgency at that point.

I'm afraid the evidence is overwhelming that he was granted bail at the remand hearing. As noted, there clearly was a school of thought that believed bail to be an automatic right as early as the remand hearing, I.e because such a right was implied by the Indictable Offences Act. In any event, to deny bail at the remand hearing would be little more than a vexatious act, on the part of the magistrate, considering that there was no doubt as to bail entitlement at the committal hearing.

Unfortunately, apart from the Wilde case no one as been able to cite a single example of an accused being denied bail, at the remand hearing, in respect of the category of misdemeanour for which Tumblety was charged. And, as discussed earlier, the only logical explanation for the denial of bail in this case is that the learned magistrate was under the misapprehension that Wilde had been charged with a felony or, alternatively, with a type of misdemeanour for which bail could be legitimately denied at committal, such as an attempted felony. Otherwise, the inescapable conclusion is that the magistrate intentionally acted unlawfully.[/QUOTE

How could a magistrate act unlawfully if he had a discretionary power to refuse bail for indictable misdemeanours ?

In Wilde's case bail was denied at both remand and committal hearings. However, for the category of misdemeanour that Wilde was charged with, indecent assault, there was no doubt that bail was an automatic right at committal. The inescapable conclusion is that the magistrate, Sir John Bridge, believed, wrongly, that Wilde had been charged with a felony, I.e buggery, or an attempted felony-which would have fallen within the limited number of misdemeanours for which bail could be legitimately denied- such as attempted buggery.

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=John G;346035]

In Wilde's case bail was denied at both remand and committal hearings. However, for the category of misdemeanour that Wilde was charged with, indecent assault, there was no doubt that bail was an automatic right at committal. The inescapable conclusion is that the magistrate, Sir John Bridge, believed, wrongly, that Wilde had been charged with a felony, I.e buggery, or an attempted felony-which would have fallen within the limited number of misdemeanours for which bail could be legitimately denied- such as attempted buggery.

You are getting as bad as Orsam we are not talking about bail after committal that is not the issue, so why keep mentioning it. We are only concerned with what happened at the magistratess court with Tumblety first appearance.

The only relevance the Wilde case has in relation to Tumbley is that he was refused bail by the police and by the magistrates at his first appearance despite having sureties there and then. Why do you think that was ?

Was the magistrate acting unlawfully?
Was it to stop him absconding?
Was it to stop him interfering with witnesses?
Was it that magistrate was using his discretion with regards to 2-3 above

Wilde was also initially arrested for gross indecency offences on a warrant as was Tumblety so they are mirror images of each other as far as offences and the judicial process are they not ?

So why keep mentioning unlawful acts by the magistrates. They knew what their powers were, and as you have been told they would have had a Victorian equivalent of a clerk of the court to guide them no doubt.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[John G]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;346038]

You are getting as bad as Orsam we are not talking about bail after committal that is not the issue, so why keep mentioning it. We are only concerned with what happened at the magistratess court with Tumblety first appearance.

The only relevance the Wilde case has in relation to Tumbley is that he was refused bail by the police and by the magistrates at his first appearance despite having sureties there and then. Why do you think that was ?

Was the magistrate acting unlawfully?
Was it to stop him absconding?
Was it to stop him interfering with witnesses?
Was it that magistrate was using his discretion with regards to 2-3 above

Wilde was also initially arrested for gross indecency offences on a warrant as was Tumblety so they are mirror images of each other as far as offences and the judicial process are they not ?

So why keep mentioning unlawful acts by the magistrates. They knew what their powers were, and as you have been told they would have had a Victorian equivalent of a clerk of the court to guide them no doubt.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I'm afraid this simply returns us to the point that has been discussed many times. As I've noted in several posts, there was clearly a school of thought that considered bail to be automatic as early as the remand hearing, I.e as possibly implied by the Indictable Offences Act. Moreover, to deny bail at the remand hearing would be little more than a vexatious act, as there was no doubt as to the automatic right to bail at committal. I'm afraid that with the exception of the Wilde case, which has now been fully explained, no one has been able to cite any cases for which bail was denied at remand for the category of misdemeanours for which Tunblety was charged, I.e indecent assault. And that would appear fatal to your argument. Sorry.

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=John G;346040]

I'm afraid this simply returns us to the point that has been discussed many times. As I've noted in several posts, there was clearly a school of thought that considered bail to be automatic as early as the remand hearing, I.e as possibly implied by the Indictable Offences Act. Moreover, to deny bail at the remand hearing would be little more than a vexatious act, as there was no doubt as to the automatic right to bail at committal. I'm afraid that with the exception of the Wilde case, which has now been fully explained, no one has been able to cite any cases for which bail was denied at remand for the category of misdemeanours for which Tunblety was charged, I.e indecent assault. And that would appear fatal to your argument. Sorry.

A school of thought who by Orsam? Where does it state that bail was automatic as early as remand hearing ? It says bail was automatic for "CERTAIN" types of misdemenaousr to which gross inedeceny was not one. Now how many times do you have be told this?

You are not following the posts on this thread because it is known and has been made clear that bail was at the discretion of the magistrates so how could it be automatic for what is termed as grave indictable offences.

You say you can find any records of others remanded at the remand stage. Does that mean to say there were none? One answer could be that others arrested for similar offences did not have the same concerns attached to them by the police as Tumblety would have and that there was no issue with granting bail at that stage.

You keep forgetting the discretionary power of the magistrate. I say again if bail was automatic why would a magistrate have that discretionary power? It doesn't make sense.

I have no doubt the term vexatious act was used by lawyers in trying to object to the police opposing bail either at a magistrates court or a judge in chambers appeal hearing, or comments they made later after failing with their application.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[John G]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;346046]

A school of thought who by Orsam? Where does it state that bail was automatic as early as remand hearing ? It says bail was automatic for "CERTAIN" types of misdemenaousr to which gross inedeceny was not one. Now how many times do you have be told this?

You are not following the posts on this thread because it is known and has been made clear that bail was at the discretion of the magistrates so how could it be automatic for what is termed as grave indictable offences.

You say you can find any records of others remanded at the remand stage. Does that mean to say there were none? One answer could be that others arrested for similar offences did not have the same concerns attached to them by the police as Tumblety would have and that there was no issue with granting bail at that stage.

You keep forgetting the discretionary power of the magistrate. I say again if bail was automatic why would a magistrate have that discretionary power? It doesn't make sense.

I have no doubt the term vexatious act was used by lawyers in trying to object to the police opposing bail either at a magistrates court or a judge in chambers appeal hearing, or comments they made later after failing with their application.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I would refer you, once again, to R v Manning (1888), where there was a discussion between the defence counsel and the judge as to whether the automatic right to bail at committal, for certain misdemeanour cases, was also an automatic right at remand. I would also remind you of Douglas' comments that it was only the "generally received impression", that bail for those cases, which would have included indecent assault, didn't arise until committal, I.e there was a possibility that such a right arose at remand. Obviously there was was confusion and uncertainty on this point. In any event, it would seem rather pointless to deny bail at remand for an offence where there was an undeniable right to bail at committal, which is why presumably bail was invariably granted in these cases.

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=John G;346047]

I would refer you, once again, to R v Manning (1888), where there was a discussion between the defence counsel and the judge as to whether the automatic right to bail at committal, for certain misdemeanour cases, was also an automatic right at remand. I would also remind you of Douglas' comments that it was only the "generally received impression", that bail for those cases, which would have included indecent assault, didn't arise until committal, I.e there was a possibility that such a right arose at remand. Obviously there was was confusion and uncertainty on this point. In any event, it would seem rather pointless to deny bail at remand for an offence where there was an undeniable right to bail at committal, which is why presumably bail was invariably granted in these cases.

In the case of R v Manning was it deemed to be unlawful for a prisoner to be remanded on remand at the first hearing even though he would be granted automatic bail at committal ?

Were the magistrates discretionary powers taken away after that?

Did that case set a precedent?

I would say clearly not and it would have been nonsensical to do so because Douglas writes in 1907

“Bail Before or After Committal — A distinction appears to be drawn as to the rights of an accused person to bail in cases of misdemeanor before and after committal for trial. The generally received impression appears to be that the right of bail in misdemeanor does not arise until committal for trial.”

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[John G]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;346057]

In the case of R v Manning was it deemed to be unlawful for a prisoner to be remanded on remand at the first hearing even though he would be granted automatic bail at committal ?

Were the magistrates discretionary powers taken away after that?

Did that case set a precedent?

I would say clearly not and it would have been nonsensical to do so because Douglas writes in 1907

“Bail Before or After Committal — A distinction appears to be drawn as to the rights of an accused person to bail in cases of misdemeanor before and after committal for trial. The generally received impression appears to be that the right of bail in misdemeanor does not arise until committal for trial.”

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Yes, I agree the law was far from settled, which is why Douglas expressed a view that it was the "generally received impression" that bail would only arise at committal. Nonetheless, David's article points to the fact that some publications did argue that the automatic right to bail, for offences such as indecent assault, arose from the adjournment of the first remand hearing: see, for example, Harris, F, Principles of Criminal Law, 1886 and 1892 editions.

In any event, it would seem rather pointless to deny bail at the remand hearing, when there was absolutely no doubt to the right to bail at committal, which presumably explains the lack of examples for bail being denied at remand for these type of cases: the exception, of course, being the the Wilde case, which has been fully explained.

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=John G;346064]

Yes, I agree the law was far from settled, which is why Douglas expressed a view that it was the "generally received impression" that bail would only arise at committal. Nonetheless, David's article points to the fact that some publications did argue that the automatic right to bail, for offences such as indecent assault, arose from the adjournment of the first remand hearing: see, for example, Harris, F, Principles of Criminal Law, 1886 and 1892 editions.

In any event, it would seem rather pointless to deny bail at the remand hearing, when there was absolutely no doubt to the right to bail at committal, which presumably explains the lack of examples for bail being denied at remand for these type of cases: the exception, of course, being the the Wilde case, which has been fully explained.

Yes its been fully explained by Orsam but is he right?

You write on the premise that he is right in all his articles. I think that there are some who disagree on that. Can you believe all you read in historical articles? Yes is the answer if you want to believe bail was automatic before committal. No if you dont simple

Yes it may sound pointless to those who do not understand how prosecution case are dealt with from start to finish.

But it was in place to protect witnesses from intimidation,and to allow the police time if necessary to gather more evidence before the committal which they were entitled to do, and to prevent him absconding before being committed.

We dont even know if the police suspected that the name Francis Tumblety was not his real name, and wanted more time to positively identify him.

Maybe that why Anderson wanted samples of the handwriting of the real Francis Tumblety just to verify they were one and the same.

We do not know if the police were investigating him for additional offences. If that had been the case again another reason to keep him locked up.

All valid reasons to keep him locked up

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[John G]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;346069]

Yes its been fully explained by Orsam but is he right?

You write on the premise that he is right in all his articles. I think that there are some who disagree on that. Can you believe all you read in historical articles? Yes is the answer if you want to believe bail was automatic before committal. No if you dont simple

Yes it may sound pointless to those who do not understand how prosecution case are dealt with from start to finish.

But it was in place to protect witnesses from intimidation,and to allow the police time if necessary to gather more evidence before the committal which they were entitled to do, and to prevent him absconding before being committed.

We dont even know if the police suspected that the name Francis Tumblety was not his real name, and wanted more time to positively identify him.

Maybe that why Anderson wanted samples of the handwriting of the real Francis Tumblety just to verify they were one and the same.

We do not know if the police were investigating him for additional offences. If that had been the case again another reason to keep him locked up.

All valid reasons to keep him locked up

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hello Trevor,

Well, I'm obviously prepared to be objective. Therefore if anyone can give examples of where bail was refused at remand, for cases similar to Tumbletey's, I will, of course, reconsider my position. I think what is required here are precedents. I would point out that David, in his article, referred to similar cases were bail was granted at remand, i.e. David Sanchez, a Chilean national, who was admitted to bail on remand in respect of a misdemeanour, despite being of no fixed address; and Charles Rosenberg, a German national, who was granted bail on remand, a few weeks after Tumblety's flight, despite being charged with a felony.

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=John G;346074]

Hello Trevor,

Well, I'm obviously prepared to be objective. Therefore if anyone can give examples of where bail was refused at remand, for cases similar to Tumbletey's, I will, of course, reconsider my position. I think what is required here are precedents. I would point out that David, in his article, referred to similar cases were bail was granted at remand, i.e. David Sanchez, a Chilean national, who was admitted to bail on remand in respect of a misdemeanour, despite being of no fixed address; and Charles Rosenberg, a German national, who was granted bail on remand, a few weeks after Tumblety's flight, despite being charged with a felony.

As has been told to you many times bail was automatic for some misdemeanours.

Gross indecency was not one of those misdemeanours

You were also told that no two cases are the same and the question of bail is looked at on an individual basis.

You could also have a situation where two people appear at the remand court jointly charged with the same offence,depending on their individual circumstances and antecedents one could get bail and the other remanded

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[John G]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;346089]

As has been told to you many times bail was automatic for some misdemeanours.

Gross indecency was not one of those misdemeanours

You were also told that no two cases are the same and the question of bail is looked at on an individual basis.

You could also have a situation where two people appear at the remand court jointly charged with the same offence,depending on their individual circumstances and antecedents one could get bail and the other remanded

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

But as I've noted, there was clearly an argument that a right to bail, for the type of offence Tumblety was charged with, arose at remand. In any event, it is clearly undeniable that Tumblety may have been granted bail, especially as bail as granted, at a remand hearing, for a German national accused of a felony!