Jack the Ripper-The Secret Police Files

[Trevor Marriott]

So you realised very well that I was right and you were wrong - otherwise why would you be waiting for me to "come forward blowing my own trumpet"?

I was waiting for you to come forward because I knew that the arrogance, and self belief that you seem to have would not allow you to just let it go. You want to have the last word and you want to try to impress the masses with your research and for them to believe you are right, well in this case you got it wrong


The only person I was wondering if there would be a comment from was you - because you absolutely refused to believe that I had a complete answer to your Oscar Wilde point - and your silence in the past week has been deafening.

The Oscar Wilde case is the icing on the cake and its something you cannot refute because again the facts of that case speak for themselves and prove that it was not automatic for a person to get bail before committal for gross indecency offences, even with sureties. In fact compared to Tumblety Wilde was a suitable case for bail. He had a fixed residence, he had money, and he had friends who had money.

Another reason Wilde didnt get bail was he was considered to be a flight risk !

But Trevor, if gross indecency was a misdemeanour - and we know it was because it was marked as such in the Central Criminal Court calendar - and it did not fall under the list of exclusions for which bail was compulsory under section 23 of the 1848 Act, then bail must have been automatic after committal for the offence of gross indecency. That is what the 1848 said.

This is not the issue with Tumblety is it because we know he was granted bail at the committal stage. The question is was he granted bail to be able to be free the night MJK was murdered?


How do you know this? We know that he was charged with offences of gross indecency AND indecent assault. But if you are saying that he was only charged with gross indecency offences at the remand hearing with indecent assault offences tagged on at the committal hearing then that would explain why his bail was increased at the committal hearing (if, indeed, it was increased) which would explain why he was back in prison on 14 November (if he had been released on 8 Nov).

I am not saying that at all I am making it known that this procedure was in place for the final charges to be laid at the committal stage. That is probably how Wilde was arrested for Gross Indecency and finished up also with Buggery charges.

Have you seen a copy of the warrant saying this? And if so, how does this have any bearing on your big point which was that Wilde was refused bail at his committal hearing?

Wilde was refused bail even with sureties before commital because he was a flight risk and the court had a discretion on bail because bail was not automatic in these cases.

I fail to see the relevance of this. Bail could be granted by a magistrate regardless of whether sureties were or were not in place.

But with the more serious cases and cases where there was a flight risk the courts would exercise their discretion, based also on what representation the police made with regards to bail. This is not modern day thinking this is common sens approach to prevent a suspect evading justice

I have told you many, many, times that issues such as flight risk or being likely to interfere with witnesses were NOT relevant to the magistrate's decision as to whether to grant bail for a misdemeanour offence in 1888. You are imposing modern thinking onto a nineteenth century process. The risk of flight was countered by setting a high level of bail. If a prisoner was really likely to interfere with witnesses this could be dealt with by the police. And, in any event, I have no idea why you think the magistrate would have regarded Tumblety as likely to interfere with witnesses more than any other prisoner.

The charges named the witnesses. Tumblety knew the witnesses, what was to stop him getting bail and going and either making threats to them or paying them off. He couldn't do either from a prison cell could he?

I fully understand why you say this and note with great amusement that you haven't even mentioned the evidence I produced in my article in response to your great Oscar Wilde point. Evidence which you refused to even believe I had found, despite me telling you categorically that I had.

You have not produced any evidence in your article and the facts you seek to rely on are not correct. Tumblety was not bailed before his committal, everything points to this, now accept it and move on.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[David Orsam]

This is my last post on this matter

Has someone hacked your account Trevor?

[David Orsam]

Tumblety arrested for Gross Indecency on a warrant

How do you know this? We know that he was charged with offences of gross indecency AND indecent assault. But if you are saying that he was only charged with gross indecency offences at the remand hearing with indecent assault offences tagged on at the committal hearing then that would explain why his bail was increased at the committal hearing (if, indeed, it was increased) which would explain why he was back in prison on 14 November (if he had been released on 8 Nov).

Wilde arrested for Gross Indecency on a warrant

Have you seen a copy of the warrant saying this? And if so, how does this have any bearing on your big point which was that Wilde was refused bail at his committal hearing?

Trevor, it seems that you or the person who hacked your account forgot to answer the questions that I posed you, as above.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi David,

Thanks. And from memory, didn't your research reveal that some prisoners who were charged within felonies were still granted bail at the remand hearing? And, if so, doesn't this suggest that the Oscar Wilde case, being a cause celebre, was something of an anomaly? In other words, the authorities/ establishment were determined to make an example of Wilde?

The authorities could only work within the constraints of the law and what facts were presented to them at the time he first appeared at court. There is no way the police could have bailed him. He was arrested on a warrant that warrant was to take him before a magistrate as soon as practicable. That was the following morning.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Has someone hacked your account Trevor?

I just wanted to emphasize once again where you shot yourself in the foot, in case it didn't register with you the first time

If the answers I gave are not to your liking, or you dont know the answers then I suggest you go away and do some more research, or apply some common sense to the research that you have already done

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[David Orsam]

I was waiting for you to come forward because I knew that the arrogance, and self belief that you seem to have would not allow you to just let it go. You want to have the last word and you want to try to impress the masses with your research and for them to believe you are right, well in this case you got it wrong.

My post was about the errors in your book which I have wanted to make for some time but obviously could not do so until after my article was published.

The Oscar Wilde case is the icing on the cake

Yes, it is the icing on the cake of my argument that you are wrong to say that Tumblety must have been in prison on 9 November.

and its something you cannot refute because again the facts of that case speak for themselves and prove that it was not automatic for a person to get bail before committal for gross indecency offences, even with sureties.

Trevor, you are showing that you have still, after all this time, not understood the point. As I have said all along, bail before committal for an offence of gross indecency was discretionary. But bail after committal was compulsory. My point is a very simple one. Because it was compulsory after committal, a magistrate in the 1880s usually granted bail for such an offence prior to committal because any other outcome would have been irrational. Will you ever understand this?

In fact compared to Tumblety Wilde was a suitable case for bail. He had a fixed residence, he had money, and he had friends who had money.

You need to go back in time and tell the magistrate who refused him bail, not me.

Another reason Wilde didnt get bail was he was considered to be a flight risk !

Where do you get that from? In my article, I quoted Sir John Bridge, when refusing bail, as referring to "the gravity of the offences and the strength of the evidence".

The question is was he granted bail to be able to be free the night MJK was murdered?

That is perfectly true and the answer is: we don't know, but he might well have been.

That is probably how Wilde was arrested for Gross Indecency and finished up also with Buggery charges.

What Buggery charges?

Wilde was refused bail even with sureties before commital because he was a flight risk and the court had a discretion on bail because bail was not automatic in these cases.

I agree that bail was not automatic in these cases under the law but, in practice, it was usually granted for the reason I have stated many times. I already said there were exceptions and the Wilde case was obviously one of these. In the absence of any evidence to support it, the "flight risk" point is in your imagination.

But with the more serious cases and cases where there was a flight risk the courts would exercise their discretion, based also on what representation the police made with regards to bail. This is not modern day thinking this is common sens approach to prevent a suspect evading justice

You cannot just apply "common sense" to a situation which was governed by the 1848 Indictable Offences Act.

The charges named the witnesses. Tumblety knew the witnesses, what was to stop him getting bail and going and either making threats to them or paying them off. He couldn't do either from a prison cell could he?

This is just ridiculous. The charges named witnesses so this meant that Tumblety was likely to interfere with them? A prosecutor would have been laughed out of court for coming up with this one.

You have not produced any evidence in your article and the facts you seek to rely on are not correct. Tumblety was not bailed before his committal, everything points to this, now accept it and move on.

I produced evidence that Oscar Wilde's lawyer's regarded the magistrate's refusal to grant bail as illegal. Something you have still not come to terms with or even acknowledged.

[Monty]

Police Code

...may help clarify.

Police Code (89) instructions regarding

1) Bail

2 & 3) Appendix F (Form of Recognisance)

4) Indecent Assault

5) Indecent Exposure.

Monty

[S.Brett]

I will buy the book...

Hello Mr. Bell,

On Chief Inspector Donald Swanson List (Scotland Yard Investigates - Evans/Rumbelow- page 224) there is the number 201 behind the names of Nichols and Chapman. 201 a Police Code? Is that possible?

Greetings.

[John G]

...may help clarify.

Police Code (89) instructions regarding

1) Bail

2 & 3) Appendix F (Form of Recognisance)

4) Indecent Assault

5) Indecent Exposure.

Monty

Hello Monty,

Were there any circumstances in which an indecent assault against a male person could be treated as a felony?

[Monty]

I will buy the book...

Hello Mr. Bell,

On Chief Inspector Donald Swanson List (Scotland Yard Investigates - Evans/Rumbelow- page 224) there is the number 201 behind the names of Nichols and Chapman. 201 a Police Code? Is that possible?

Greetings.

Hello S Brett,

201 is no connection to the Code. I assume it may be in relation to Abberlines report, which covered both Nichols and Chapman's murder.

Monty

[Monty]

Again, The 1889 Police Code has been cited.

Hello Monty,

Were there any circumstances in which an indecent assault against a male person could be treated as a felony?

Yes, if Common Assault was included as part of the offence, depending on the nature of the assault. (24 & 25 Vict, c. 100. refers to below).



Offences Against the Person Act 1861 CHAPTER 100 24 and 25 Vict

Attempting to choke, &c. in order to commit any indictable offence.

Whosoever shall, by any means whatsoever, attempt to choke, suffocate, or strangle any other person, or shall by any means calculated to choke, suffocate, or strangle, attempt to render any other person insensible, unconscious, or incapable of resistance, with intent in any of such cases thereby to enable himself or any other person to commit, or with intent in any of such cases thereby to assist any other person in committing, any indictable offence, shall be guilty of felony.

Monty

[S.Brett]

Hello S Brett,

201 is no connection to the Code. I assume it may be in relation to Abberlines report, which covered both Nichols and Chapman's murder.

Monty

Thanks a lot!

[John G]

Yes, if Common Assault was included as part of the offence, depending on the nature of the assault. (24 & 25 Vict, c. 100. refers to below).



Offences Against the Person Act 1861 CHAPTER 100 24 and 25 Vict

Attempting to choke, &c. in order to commit any indictable offence.

Whosoever shall, by any means whatsoever, attempt to choke, suffocate, or strangle any other person, or shall by any means calculated to choke, suffocate, or strangle, attempt to render any other person insensible, unconscious, or incapable of resistance, with intent in any of such cases thereby to enable himself or any other person to commit, or with intent in any of such cases thereby to assist any other person in committing, any indictable offence, shall be guilty of felony.

Monty

Thanks Monty,

It does seem that there was a high likelihood that Tumblety would have been granted bail at the remand hearing, as this would have been automatic at the committal hearing in respect of the misdemeanour offences he was charged with: Indictable Offences Act, 1848.

The only exception I can see is if the police intimated to the magistrates that there was a probability that more serious charges would be added to the indictment, I.e buggery or common assault (felonies) or a misdemeanour for which bail could still be denied at the committal hearing, I.e wilful or indecent exposure.

[Trevor Marriott]

Thanks Monty,

It does seem that there was a high likelihood that Tumblety would have been granted bail at the remand hearing, as this would have been automatic at the committal hearing in respect of the misdemeanour offences he was charged with: Indictable Offences Act, 1848.

The only exception I can see is if the police intimated to the magistrates that there was a probability that more serious charges would be added to the indictment, I.e buggery or common assault (felonies) or a misdemeanour for which bail could still be denied at the committal hearing, I.e wilful or indecent exposure.

Can you not see why that would not have happened with regards to Tumblety, his antecedents and the charges he faced coupled with the sentence he would likely to receive if convicted.

If you go back to what Monty posted earlier that even with minor offences triable only by a magistrate there were reasons why bail would not be granted, so those reasons must have also applied even more so to the more serious offence I quote from the relevant legislation. Bail could be given "if they are well known" "and not likely to escape"

Not likely to escape in my book means a flight risk, and was Tumblety well known? He was an american living in lodgings in London. hardly a well know local person!

Everyone also seems to be forgetting that when an application was made for bail by a suspect, the police had the right to put forward grounds for objection. It was then for the magistrate after hearing both sides to use his discretion with regard to granting of bail or not. The police would certainly have objected given all that is known.

I say again the evidence and facts to point to a remand in custody far outweigh the facts to show he was released on remand on either Nov 7 or the 8th.

Even Orsam admits that he spent at least one night in prison custody on remand, and after that is where his theory flounders on the rocks.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[David Orsam]

If you go back to what Monty posted earlier that even with minor offences triable only by a magistrate there were reasons why bail would not be granted, so those reasons must have also applied even more so to the more serious offence I quote from the relevant legislation. Bail could be given "if they are well known" "and not likely to escape"

Trevor, the Police Code quoted by Monty is a code of conduct for the police, and the police only, and refers to police bail, and police bail only. It had no application to magistrates. You do know this because you have quoted that extract before and I told you exactly the same thing.

Not likely to escape in my book means a flight risk, and was Tumblety well known? He was an american living in lodgings in London. hardly a well know local person!

These points are irrelevant because we are not discussing whether Tumblety would or would not have been granted police bail. We are discussing whether Tumblety would have been granted bail by a magistrate at a remand hearing.

Everyone also seems to be forgetting that when an application was made for bail by a suspect, the police had the right to put forward grounds for objection. It was then for the magistrate after hearing both sides to use his discretion with regard to granting of bail or not. The police would certainly have objected given all that is known.

I am not forgetting this at all Trevor. The point is really a very simple one. There was no point in a prosecutor objecting to bail on remand in circumstances were it was compulsory for bail to be granted at the committal hearing. If a prosecutor made a "flight risk" argument it would have been ignored by the magistrate for a misdemeanour offence of the type Tumblety was charged with because the exact same flight risk would have applied after the committal hearing. We know for a fact that Tumblety was granted bail on 14 November despite being, as he clearly was, a major flight risk. You have never quite been able to wrap your head around the fact that Tumbley was, in fact, granted bail at the committal hearing. If he was a flight risk on 7 November he was also a flight risk on 14 November but bail was granted on 14 November (as it HAD to be by law) so there was no reason for the magistrate not to grant it on 7 November, while setting bail at a high level.

I say again the evidence and facts to point to a remand in custody far outweigh the facts to show he was released on remand on either Nov 7 or the 8th.

You can keep saying this until you are blue in the face but until you show that you understand the meaning and consequences of s.23 of the Indictable Offences Act 1848, such huffing and puffing is meaningless.