Jack the Ripper-The Secret Police Files

[Bridewell]

Common Assault is now a summary offence. It has never been indictable. For many years it was treated by the police as essentially a civil matter.

I'm not sure where the line was drawn with regard to Indictable Only offences in the 19th century but in the modern world the only category of assault which is Indictable Only is s.18 GBH/Wounding With Intent. s.47 (Actual Bodily Harm) & s.20 (GBH/Wounding) are triable either way.

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

I keep telling you that same bail criteria for the police not granting bail would be the same for a magistrate. They didn't suddenly disregard those reasons for not granting bail just because a magistrate was then hearing the case, of course the same would apply

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.

Well according to your article you say he did not get bail at the remand hearing but spent at least one day in prison. let me now put you right on court procedures. If according to you he appeared at court on either Nov 7 or the 8th and you say it was the 7th but don't produce any evidence in support of this, despite saying in the article that you do.

According to you the magistrate obviously remanded him in custody. You say for one day i say for 7 days. He would not have agreed to have him produced back at court the following day there would have been no point. If Tumblety had made a bail application there and then, and it had been refused the magistrate would not have had him back the next day, ther would have been on point as nothing would have changed.

Now playing devils advocate in your favor, lets just say that remand could have been with a condition of bail being granted should he be able to provide sureties.

He would not have been brought back to the court the following day as you suggest. If he had have come up with the sureties in the interim 24 hours then his lawyer could have gone back to court and asked for bail on his behalf and produced the sureties there and then, and in any event had that happened 24-48 hours would have been needed for them to be checked out. Once that had been done then the court would have granted bail and the relevant paperwork delivered to prison ordering his release on bail.

There was also an option for him to make a bail application to a visiting magistrate for bail.

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.

There is every reason and more than one. After his committal the police would have had their case sown up, all the witness testimony would have been given without interference. The arrest, charge, remand and commital is an important part of the due process of the law with regards to the prosecution of offenders for these type of offences so the police would want to ensure there were no problems caused by bailing a person before committal.

We know that Tumbety was granted bail on Nov 14th and it took two days for that bail to be put in place. The sureties would have to have attended on the 14th and agreed to stand for him there and then.

It would have to have taken time for them to be checked out because it would not have been until Tumbley physically appeared before the magistrate that the amount the sureties would be asked to stand for would have been known.

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.

It is you that doesn't understand, or is it a case that you simply don't want to understand for to do so would destroy your theory.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[David Orsam]

Trevor,

You are making all the same mistakes that you made in your article and that you have made in discussions we have had in the past on this forum.

The reason why the rules for police bail did not apply to magistrates is because the bail decisions of magistrates were governed by the 1848 Indictable Offences Act. That Act said that bail was compulsory at committal for certain types of misdemeanour. There was no compulsory bail in respect of police bail. That is why the two things are completely different.

As for bail procedure, you still seem to be unaware of the effect of the Summary Jurisdiction Act of 1879 which allowed the governor of a prison to effect release from prison of a prisoner on bail once the bail terms had been satisfied. The antiquated procedure of requiring a visiting magistrate to come to the prison to do this was thus superseded. No visiting magistrate was necessary in 1888. And Tumblety did not need to go back to the magistrate.

What would have happened on 7 November is that Tumblety would have been committed to prison on a remand warrant with the bail conditions (assuming he was granted bail) written on the reverse of that warrant. Once those conditions were satisfied, the governor of Holloway prison had the statutory power to release him. If the conditions were not satisfied then, under the terms of the remand warrant, Tumblety would have been brought back to the magistrate's court from prison after the number of days stated on the warrant, which, yes, would probably have been 7 days.

The evidence, incidentally, that Tumblety went before a magistrate on 7 November is to be found in the Central Criminal Court Calendar which says that he was received into custody on 7 November. That means that he was received into custody at Holloway prison. If he was received into custody at Holloway prison on 7 November then he must have been remanded there by the magistrate on 7 November. This has all been explained to you.

I do find it extraordinary how you can dig up all these all old bad points which have already been answered time and time again.

[Trevor Marriott]

When will you see the light

Trevor,

You are making all the same mistakes that you made in your article and that you have made in discussions we have had in the past on this forum.

The reason why the rules for police bail did not apply to magistrates is because the bail decisions of magistrates were governed by the 1848 Indictable Offences Act. That Act said that bail was compulsory at committal for certain types of misdemeanour. There was no compulsory bail in respect of police bail. That is why the two things are completely different.

You keep missing the point that the argument is not abut bail after committal, that is not in dispute, so stop muddying the waters with continuous reference to this

As for bail procedure, you still seem to be unaware of the effect of the Summary Jurisdiction Act of 1879 which allowed the governor of a prison to effect release from prison of a prisoner on bail once the bail terms had been satisfied. The antiquated procedure of requiring a visiting magistrate to come to the prison to do this was thus superseded. No visiting magistrate was necessary in 1888. And Tumblety did not need to go back to the magistrate.

You are not reading my posts in the last I detailed the issue of bail from prison.

What would have happened on 7 November is that Tumblety would have been committed to prison on a remand warrant with the bail conditions (assuming he was granted bail) written on the reverse of that warrant. Once those conditions were satisfied, the governor of Holloway prison had the statutory power to release him. If the conditions were not satisfied then, under the terms of the remand warrant, Tumblety would have been brought back to the magistrate's court from prison after the number of days stated on the warrant, which, yes, would probably have been 7 days.

The Nov 7th date you seem to be suggesting was the date he was first taken to court. You seek to rely on the court calendar. yet in your article you say you have other evidence to support this date provided to you by another researcher Robert Linford ye to date we have not seen sight of this.


The evidence, incidentally, that Tumblety went before a magistrate on 7 November is to be found in the Central Criminal Court Calendar which says that he was received into custody on 7 November. That means that he was received into custody at Holloway prison. If he was received into custody at Holloway prison on 7 November then he must have been remanded there by the magistrate on 7 November. This has all been explained to you.

The court calendar entry you seek to rely on is rather ambiguous in as much as you try to suggest that the entry on the court calendar refers to the date he was “Received into custody” that being Nov 7th. Now that entry could either refer to the date he was first arrested or the date he was remanded in custody by the magistrate. The two could be different if he was arrested on Nov 7th and did not appear at court until the following morning Nov 8th due to the court being closed. You show no direct evidence in support of your suggestion that it was the date he was remanded into custody by the magistrate was Nov 7th.

So let’s look at the various permutations. But before doing so you have accepted that any inital remand period would have been for 7 days !!!!!

If Tumblety had made his first appearance on Nov 7th the magistrate would have remanded him in custody for 7 days for the purpose of committal proceedings being instigated. So a 7 day remand in custody would have taken the date to Nov 13th which would not fit in with his subsequent committal date of Nov 14th.

So that suggests that he did not appear in the first instance at court until Nov 8th and 7 day remand from then would take it to Nov 14th, the date of his subsequent committal .

So you see David it is all so simple it all points to him being in custody in prison the night Kelly was murdered, coupled with the fact that he appeared to have been under surveillance on the date Nichols was murdered. So in concluding Tumblety was not the killer of any of the victims.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

.

[John G]

By way of clarification, I am assuming that if Tumblety was remanded in custody on, say, November 8 awaiting sureties, then the prison governor would have the power, and perhaps the legal obligation, to release him as soon as that bail condition had been met.

[Trevor Marriott]

By way of clarification, I am assuming that if Tumblety was remanded in custody on, say, November 8 awaiting sureties, then the prison governor would have the power, and perhaps the legal obligation, to release him as soon as that bail condition had been met.

It is wrong to assume that based on what is known about the discretionary granting of bail prior to committal and what Douglas writes that it was not normal practice to give bail before committal for these type of offences. that Tumbety was even granted any bail before committal with sureties or not

In the case of sureties not forgetting the time period for them to go before a magistrate and then be checked.

The answer to your original question is

A warrant of deliverance

"And be it enacted, that in all cases where a Justice or Justices of the Peace shall admit to Bail any Person who shall then be in any Prison charged with the Offence for which he shall be so admitted to Bail, such Justice or Justices shall send to or cause to be lodged with the Keeper of such Prison a Warrant of Deliverance under his or their Hand and Seal or Hands and Seals, requiring the said Keeper to discharge the Person so admitted to Bail, if he be detained for no other Offence, and upon such Warrant of Deliverance being delivered to or lodged with such Keeper he shall forthwith obey the same."

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[David Orsam]

Tumblety would have been brought back to the magistrate's court from prison after the number of days stated on the warrant, which, yes, would probably have been 7 days

Before I respond to Trevor, I just want to clarify that the rogue word "probably" crept in here: it was clearly a 7 day remand, from 7 November to 14 November (despite Trevor's belief that this is 8 days).

[David Orsam]

Trevor,

It is unbelievable that you are continuing to argue false points that have already been answered comprehensively by me (and others) on this forum.

I note that your last two posts to me have not even mentioned Oscar Wilde which was supposedly your big killer point in the revised edition of your book and that is what I posted about in this thread.

After this post I am not going to respond to you again, unless you raise a sensible new point, because you do not seem to able to discuss this topic in any kind of rational way.

My responses to your last posting are:

1. The argument IS about bail after committal because the fact that bail after committal was compulsory is what affected the way magistrates dealt with bail before committal at remand hearings. It is, however, ironic that you claim that the argument is not about bail after committal because in the revised edition of your book you state that the argument against you is that:

"there are no examples of anyone being remanded in custody for these types of offences, and in any event bail would have been automatically granted at the committal stage".

As I have pointed out, the first part of the above is a misrepresentation of the argument against you but the second part is accurate and shows you are perfectly aware of what I am saying. This is the reason why your book goes on to make the point that Wilde:

"was refused bail, and also refused bail following his committal."

You know what the issue is Trevor, you thought you had proved me wrong with the case of Oscar Wilde because he was refused bail after committal and now you pretend that this discussion has nothing to do with bail after committal!!!

2. I have read your posts (and your article) about the issue of bail from prison but you have simply got it all wrong. You seem to be unaware that there was a very quick and efficient process for releasing a prisoner from jail. There was no need for a visiting magistrate.

3. I am absolutely astonished that you seek to challenge the meaning of "received into custody" in the Central Criminal Court Calendar. I did not say that the evidence about this was provided to me by Robert Linford. What happened is that Robert and myself worked it out in public on this Casebook forum! See the "Commendations - Challenge!" thread in the Tumblety forum from #48 all the way through to #60 where Robert and I worked it all out. But you should be aware of this because in the "Was Tumblety in Jail during the Kelly murder?" thread, at #618, I specifically drew your attention to the Commendations thread and I gave you a list of examples so that you could understand the point. See also my post to you #627 in the same thread. It was all explained to you and I truly thought that this was one thing you had understood and accepted.

4. It follows that there is no ambiguity at all on the Central Criminal Court Calendar in respect of the meaning of "Received into custody". It certainly does not refer to the date of arrest. It only refers to the date a prisoner was received into custody by the governor of Holloway prison, which would also have been the day of his remand hearing (because remanded prisoners were not kept overnight in the cells at the magistrate's court).

5. It amazes me that you make a childish point that I have accepted that the initial remand period would have been for 7 days. Do you actually know anything at all about court procedure? A magistrate could remand a prisoner for 7 days without bail or he could remand a prisoner for 7 days with bail. If the prisoner was remanded with bail then that prisoner would be released from custody as soon as he found the bail and came up the required sureties or bail in himself, as appropriate. In other words, he would not remain for the entire 7 days in custody. But if he did not find the bail then he would obviously remain for the entire 7 days in custody.

6. You say that a "7 day remand in custody would have taken the date to Nov 13th". I disagree for the following reason:

From 7 to 8 November is one day.
From 8 to 9 November is two days.
From 9 to 10 November is three days.
From 10 to 11 November is four days.
From 11 to 12 November is five days.
From 12 to 13 November is six days.
From 13 to 14 November is seven days.

It strikes me as very simple mathematics. From Day 7 in one month to Day 14 in the same month is seven days. Thus, a remand from 7 November to 14 November is a seven day remand.

Conclusion

There is nothing that points to Tumblety being in custody in prison the night Kelly was murdered. He could have been in prison but he could have been released on 8 November. You have in no way proved the case that he was, or probably was, in prison that night.

I would add that, while it is not part of my case that Tumblety was Jack the Ripper, your argument that Tumblety "appeared to have been under surveillance on the date Nichols was murdered" is no more than the product of your overactive imagination. As you have told us that the murderer of Mary Jane Kelly was not Jack the Ripper then you are logically bound to accept that even if Tumblety was in prison on the night of Kelly's murder he could still have been Jack the Ripper. So you have totally snookered yourself on that one!

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor,

It is unbelievable that you are continuing to argue false points that have already been answered comprehensively by me (and others) on this forum.

I note that your last two posts to me have not even mentioned Oscar Wilde which was supposedly your big killer point in the revised edition of your book and that is what I posted about in this thread.

After this post I am not going to respond to you again, unless you raise a sensible new point, because you do not seem to able to discuss this topic in any kind of rational way.

My responses to your last posting are:

1. The argument IS about bail after committal because the fact that bail after committal was compulsory is what affected the way magistrates dealt with bail before committal at remand hearings. It is, however, ironic that you claim that the argument is not about bail after committal because in the revised edition of your book you state that the argument against you is that:

"there are no examples of anyone being remanded in custody for these types of offences, and in any event bail would have been automatically granted at the committal stage".

As I have pointed out, the first part of the above is a misrepresentation of the argument against you but the second part is accurate and shows you are perfectly aware of what I am saying. This is the reason why your book goes on to make the point that Wilde:

"was refused bail, and also refused bail following his committal."

You know what the issue is Trevor, you thought you had proved me wrong with the case of Oscar Wilde because he was refused bail after committal and now you pretend that this discussion has nothing to do with bail after committal!!!

2. I have read your posts (and your article) about the issue of bail from prison but you have simply got it all wrong. You seem to be unaware that there was a very quick and efficient process for releasing a prisoner from jail. There was no need for a visiting magistrate.

3. I am absolutely astonished that you seek to challenge the meaning of "received into custody" in the Central Criminal Court Calendar. I did not say that the evidence about this was provided to me by Robert Linford. What happened is that Robert and myself worked it out in public on this Casebook forum! See the "Commendations - Challenge!" thread in the Tumblety forum from #48 all the way through to #60 where Robert and I worked it all out. But you should be aware of this because in the "Was Tumblety in Jail during the Kelly murder?" thread, at #618, I specifically drew your attention to the Commendations thread and I gave you a list of examples so that you could understand the point. See also my post to you #627 in the same thread. It was all explained to you and I truly thought that this was one thing you had understood and accepted.

4. It follows that there is no ambiguity at all on the Central Criminal Court Calendar in respect of the meaning of "Received into custody". It certainly does not refer to the date of arrest. It only refers to the date a prisoner was received into custody by the governor of Holloway prison, which would also have been the day of his remand hearing (because remanded prisoners were not kept overnight in the cells at the magistrate's court).

5. It amazes me that you make a childish point that I have accepted that the initial remand period would have been for 7 days. Do you actually know anything at all about court procedure? A magistrate could remand a prisoner for 7 days without bail or he could remand a prisoner for 7 days with bail. If the prisoner was remanded with bail then that prisoner would be released from custody as soon as he found the bail and came up the required sureties or bail in himself, as appropriate. In other words, he would not remain for the entire 7 days in custody. But if he did not find the bail then he would obviously remain for the entire 7 days in custody.

6. You say that a "7 day remand in custody would have taken the date to Nov 13th". I disagree for the following reason:

From 7 to 8 November is one day.
From 8 to 9 November is two days.
From 9 to 10 November is three days.
From 10 to 11 November is four days.
From 11 to 12 November is five days.
From 12 to 13 November is six days.
From 13 to 14 November is seven days.

It strikes me as very simple mathematics. From Day 7 in one month to Day 14 in the same month is seven days. Thus, a remand from 7 November to 14 November is a seven day remand.

Conclusion

There is nothing that points to Tumblety being in custody in prison the night Kelly was murdered. He could have been in prison but he could have been released on 8 November. You have in no way proved the case that he was, or probably was, in prison that night.

I would add that, while it is not part of my case that Tumblety was Jack the Ripper, your argument that Tumblety "appeared to have been under surveillance on the date Nichols was murdered" is no more than the product of your overactive imagination. As you have told us that the murderer of Mary Jane Kelly was not Jack the Ripper then you are logically bound to accept that even if Tumblety was in prison on the night of Kelly's murder he could still have been Jack the Ripper. So you have totally snookered yourself on that one!

David
You are totally deluded, come down off Planet Orsam. You will never admit you are wrong, and until you do there is no point in anyone engaging in any form of dialogue with you.

Just one thing for you to do, use your fingers, or buy and abacus and count how many days from Nov 7-13 and then from Nov 8-14

In simple date order

November
7 = 1
8 = 2
9 = 3 = 10 = 4
11 = 5
12 = 6
13 = 7

8 = 1
9 = 2
10 = 3
11 = 4
12 = 5
13 = 6
14 = 7

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Monty]

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.

Erm, not entirely true.

The Police Code, or rather The Police Code: General Manual of the Criminal Law for the British Empire was designed for use by everybody, including the police, barristers, judges, magistrates, general public, the whole shebang.

It must be noted that magistrates must abide by the same legal criteria as laid down in the appropriate legal acts, however the fluidity of circumstances between custody and hearing may alter legal procedures pending on what, precisely, has altered.

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

Erm, not entirely true.

The Police Code, or rather The Police Code: General Manual of the Criminal Law for the British Empire was designed for use by everybody, including the police, barristers, judges, magistrates, general public, the whole shebang.

It must be noted that magistrates must abide by the same legal criteria as laid down in the appropriate legal acts, however the fluidity of circumstances between custody and hearing may alter legal procedures pending on what, precisely, has altered.

Monty

Monty

Thank you for that. I have been telling Mr Orsam that it does apply to magistrates, perhaps he will listen to you now.

And what may alter is with regards to the discretionary powers given to a magistrate in determining whether or not to grant bail in these cases. He seems to have disregarded this power and believes that because bail was automatic at the committal stage, it would have been automatic at the remand stage. If that had been the case there would be no point in those discretionary powers being in place.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[John G]

Unfortunately the Indictable Offences Act,1848 was a complete mess and full of anomalies. Thus, in his article David refers to R v Bennett, where it was held that a judge in chambers had no other alternative but to grant bail in respect of all misdemeanour offences- following the committal hearing- after an application under the Habeas Corpus Act, I.e even in respect of the limited number of misdemeanour offences for which a magistrate could still technically exercise his discretion to refuse bail at the committal hearing.

David also cites an example of a German national, who was granted bail at the remand hearing, despite being charged with a felony. It therefore appears that in an overwhelming number of cases bail was granted at the remand hearing, because to do otherwise would amount to delaying the inevitable, I.e the automatic right to bail at the committal hearing, regardless of other circumstances.

[Trevor Marriott]

Unfortunately the Indictable Offences Act,1848 was a complete mess and full of anomalies. Thus, in his article David refers to R v Bennett, where it was held that a judge in chambers had no other alternative but to grant bail in respect of all misdemeanour offences- following the committal hearing- after an application under the Habeas Corpus Act, I.e even in respect of the limited number of misdemeanour offences for which a magistrate could still technically exercise his discretion to refuse bail at the committal hearing.

David also cites an example of a German national, who was granted bail at the remand hearing, despite being charged with a felony. It therefore appears that in an overwhelming number of cases bail was granted at the remand hearing, because to do otherwise would amount to delaying the inevitable, I.e the automatic right to bail at the committal hearing, regardless of other circumstances.

No two cases are the same. It is wrong in practice to refer to one to support a theory and play it against another which doesn't support that same theory when given the circumstance of each case they both may be right.

The reasons for a remand at the remand stage would have been for the reasons previously stated. Some accused were well known and had property. money and jobs and were not considered likely to escape.

Others who were not would have been remanded until at least the committal stage as Douglas states, and don't forget that the initial charges could have been amended at committal stage by the magistrate. So a person initially charge with a misdemeanor could if the evidence was there commit him on a felony charge also.

Why do I get the feeling you want to believe Tumblety was bailed at his remand hearing?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[John G]

No two cases are the same. It is wrong in practice to refer to one to support a theory and play it against another which doesn't support that same theory when given the circumstance of each case they both may be right.

The reasons for a remand at the remand stage would have been for the reasons previously stated. Some accused were well known and had property. money and jobs and were not considered likely to escape.

Others who were not would have been remanded until at least the committal stage as Douglas states, and don't forget that the initial charges could have been amended at committal stage by the magistrate. So a person initially charge with a misdemeanor could if the evidence was there commit him on a felony charge also.

Why do I get the feeling you want to believe Tumblety was bailed at his remand hearing?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Douglas' comments, in the 1907 edition of Summary Jurisdiction Procedure, was addressing the uncertainty that the Indictable Offences Act, 1848, had created regarding the time when an automatic right to bail arose. He expressed a view that the "generally received impression" was that it didn't arise until the committal hearing; the implication being that there was an argument that it might arise at an earlier time, I.e the remand hearing!

However, I can reassure you that I don't consider Tumblety a credible suspect. In my opinion his sexual orientation effectively rules him out.

[Trevor Marriott]

Douglas' comments, in the 1907 edition of Summary Jurisdiction Procedure, was addressing the uncertainty that the Indictable Offences Act, 1848, had created regarding the time when an automatic right to bail arose. He expressed a view that the "generally received impression" was that it didn't arise until the committal hearing; the implication being that there was an argument that it might arise at an earlier time, I.e the remand hearing!

However, I can reassure you that I don't consider Tumblety a credible suspect. In my opinion his sexual orientation effectively rules him out.

Thank you for your honest reply and I concur with you with regards to his sexual orientation

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk