Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Torso Killings: torso maps - by FrankO 2 minutes ago.
General Suspect Discussion: Sergeant Thick's Sketchy Connections? - by MrBarnett 8 minutes ago.
General Suspect Discussion: Sergeant Thick's Sketchy Connections? - by MrBarnett 17 minutes ago.
General Suspect Discussion: Sergeant Thick's Sketchy Connections? - by MrBarnett 2 hours ago.
General Suspect Discussion: Sergeant Thick's Sketchy Connections? - by Sam Flynn 2 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Was the ripper and also the torsomans crimes totally non sexual in nature? - by Sam Flynn 2 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: Lechmere was Jack the Ripper - (40 posts)
Torso Killings: torso maps - (13 posts)
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - (11 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: Was the ripper and also the torsomans crimes totally non sexual in nature? - (10 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Sergeant Thick's Sketchy Connections? - (6 posts)
Rippercast: Colin Wilson: Jack the Ripper Conference in Ipswich, 1996 - (1 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Media > Books > Non-Fiction

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #21  
Old 07-05-2015, 03:21 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
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".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
That is probably how Wilde was arrested for Gross Indecency and finished up also with Buggery charges.
What Buggery charges?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
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.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 07-06-2015, 01:19 AM
Monty Monty is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Leicestershire
Posts: 5,183
Default 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
Attached Images
     
__________________




Author of Capturing Jack the Ripper.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/1445621622
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 07-06-2015, 02:17 AM
S.Brett S.Brett is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 328
Default

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.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 07-06-2015, 03:06 AM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,289
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Monty View Post
...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?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 07-06-2015, 04:36 AM
Monty Monty is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Leicestershire
Posts: 5,183
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by S.Brett View Post
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
__________________




Author of Capturing Jack the Ripper.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/1445621622
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 07-06-2015, 04:52 AM
Monty Monty is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Leicestershire
Posts: 5,183
Default Again, The 1889 Police Code has been cited.

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
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
Attached Images
 
__________________




Author of Capturing Jack the Ripper.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/1445621622
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 07-06-2015, 04:56 AM
S.Brett S.Brett is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 328
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Monty View Post
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!
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 07-06-2015, 05:37 AM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,289
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Monty View Post
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.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 07-06-2015, 08:27 AM
Trevor Marriott Trevor Marriott is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,986
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
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.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 07-06-2015, 01:40 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
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.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:36 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.