Tumblety's Past; not Tumblety Today - Andrews' True Agenda

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

even Wolf admits Shore would never to this.

Funny, I don’t remember ever saying that “Shore would never do this,” and, in fact, I didn’t.

Phrases like “this would tend to show,” and “it seems doubtful” do not translate into the absolute “never” as you have suggested, Mike. Instead they show a cautiousness on my part regarding this point. Especially since there was a confusion about who was being talked about. Was it “Chief Inspector Shore” (who I found a reference to in a later newspaper article) or was it “Superintendent Shore?” And, actually, Simon and I don’t disagree on this point.

My article, which only briefly touched on Shore and Jarvis, came out first. Simon’s article, in which he did a great deal more in depth research, was on the subject of Shore and Jarvis, and came out after mine. Simon’s work, therefore, supersedes mine, not only being more current but in its breadth and depth of research.

Earlier, when we were debating Anderson’s anti Parnell activities, I considered posting the gist of a conversation I had with Alan Sharp at the last Baltimore Conference. I decided against it because I couldn’t offer any specifics but I can now.

Alan, the author of the excellent Jack the Ripper and the Irish Press (Ashfield Press, 2005), which I highly recommend, is, or at least was, writing a book on Sir Robert Anderson and, as Alan had read my Inspector Andrews articles, we talked about Anderson and Parnell. I mentioned the Pinkerton’s letters to various newspapers and Alan laughed at these saying Pinkerton was lying about never having worked for the British Government against the Irish in America. That indeed they had.

So, according to Alan, Pinkerton was offering disinformation, as Norma and Simon have stated, about his detective agencies secret work for the British Government against the Irish. If that was a lie, and there is some evidence that Shore did indeed travel to America, then can you put your faith in Pinkerton’s words?

Wolf.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mike,

"Scotland Yard fully expected Tumblety to arrive in Canada"?

If this was true [which I very much doubt], Scotland Yard must have been dumber than a box of spanners.

Why would Tumblety, allegedly suspected of involvement in the WM, have voluntarily travelled to Canada, a country from which he could have been extradited?

Tumblety may have been a lot of things, but stupid wasn't one of them.

I'd take care using 'Roger' and 'convincing' in the same sentence.

Regards,

Simon

[mklhawley]

Hi Simon,

There would have been no purpose for Pinkerton to hunt him down. Andrews was sent over not to arrest Tumblety, but to collect potentially damning evidence. Roger makes a convincing argument that Scotland Yard fully expected Tumblety to arrive in Canada, a country they could have extradited Tumblety at any time. Just as you stated Pinkerton was hired by Scotland Yard for a different reason, thus, was busy working on that particular case.

Mike

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mike,

Robert Pinkerton admitted to being in Kansas City with his brother at around the same time as Jarvis and Shore, though he was careful to point out that it was all in connection with routine office business and nothing more than sheer coincidence.

The Pinkertons were in cahoots with Scotland Yard and thus in deep denial of the fact. Through November and December 1888 [at the very least] they were on Scotland Yard's payroll. They were hired to trace and arrest Thomas Barton, the job Jarvis had ostensibly been sent to do in America. And on Tuesday 23rd January 1889 the Pinkerton agency announced with great fanfare in the US press that together with Inspector Jarvis they had effected Barton's arrest the previous day [22nd January].

The only problem with this story is that The Times of London had reported Jarvis's arrest of Barton on 14th January.

Jarvis had nothing to do with it. At the time of Barton's arrest by Captain Linden of Pinkertons, he was in Winnipeg, Canada, and so concerned was he about fulfilling the transatlantic mission on which he had been sent by Robert Anderson that on hearing of the arrest he stopped off in St Paul, Minnesota, for three days as "the guest of the local police officials." It would be another three months before Jarvis returned to England with his prisoner. And to cap it all he told the Bow Street Magistrates Court that he "went to the United States and found the prisoner in custody at Philadelphia."

Are you starting to smell a rat?

Apparently William Pinkerton thought Tumblety "entirely capable of the Whitechapel atrocities". At the request of Scotland Yard he could have picked up Tumblety in a heartbeat. But he didn't, and nor was he asked to. There was far more important and urgent business at hand.

Are we really expected to believe that all this North American skulduggery by the Pinkertons and the Metropolitan Police was nothing but an elaborate charade to disguise the fact that Scotland Yard was actually after Tumblety?

Regards,

Simon

[mklhawley]

Hi Simon,

It is interesting, though, that you and Wolf disagree on this point. Wolf saves the Parnell conspiracy by saying it must have been a different Chief Inspector Shore, while you save it by saying THE Superintendent Shore did infact come to America. To me, after Pinkerton stated this big claim that Shore never made it to the U.S. Shores, it would have been easy to counter it at the time, further reinforcing the truth to the Parnell conspiracy rumor. Yet, this never occurred.

Mike

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mike,

Of course you agree with Wolf in this instance. It's all part and parcel of your pick 'n' mix theorizing.

Wolf wrote, "Interestingly, however, when Sir Charles Warren resigned in November of 1888, Shore was away on sick leave."

What a fantastic coincidence, then, that Shore should arrive in New York on 7th December 1888. Factor in an eight or nine day transatlantic voyage and this has him leaving London in late November.

You're too trusting. Next you'll be having me believe that Robert Anderson went to Switzerland for his health.

Regards,

Simon

[mklhawley]

Hi Simon,

Here is what I am referring to:

Ripper Notes #24 October 2005: Death in East End – On the Trail of Tumblety? Inspector Andrews’ Trip to Toronto Part 2 by Wolf Vanderlinden

“Chief Inspector Shore” is a puzzling reference. I assume that Andrews did not mean Superintendent John Shore (Warrant No. 37737), who had been a chief inspector but had been promoted to superintendent in 1886. Shore, as CID, Scotland Yard, was a perfect candidate to send to North America to search for evidence for the Times. He was also certainly aware of the progress of the Ripper investigation, and his signature is on several of those reports proving that he read them. This would tend to show that Shore was in London during the Autumn of Terror rather than traipsing around North America. Interestingly, however, when Sir Charles Warren resigned in November of 1888, Shore was away on sick leave. His signature only next appears on a Whitechapel murder investigation document dated 18 January, 1889. Where he was during his sick leave I cannot say, but it seems doubtful that a man of his position would be sent to North America on a secret mission to aid Inspector Andrews.”

Here again, I agree with Wolf.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mike,

I don't know why "Wolf admits Shore would never do this" when there are a number of press reports to the contrary.

I refer you to the Chicago Daily Tribune, 16th December 1888, in my Post #82.

I also recommend you read the front page of the Atchison Daily Champion, 17th January 1889, for the details of exactly who met whom in Kansas City.

Regards,

Simon

[mklhawley]

[QUOTE=Natalie Severn;153186]

"The Pinkerton's National Detective agency has never obtained a particle of evidence against Mr. Parnell, and has never been requested by the London Times or the British government to hunt up evidence. I know of my own knowledge that Superintendent Shore has not been in this country for a number of years.[/QUOTE]

Lets not be naive here Mike,with due respect . Pinkerton"s being in the same line of business as the Special Branch would be just as keen on putting out "disinformation".

With all due respect also, it's funny how Pinkerton's comments are considered misinformation (even when his Civil War comments were spot on), while everyone considers the December 23, 1888 NY Herald, a completely Irish-biased source, fact. So, you are telling me that Andrews, engaging in a completely illegal political act, makes a studid mistake of admitting all to the NY Herald? Who is really stretching logic?

I'm still waiting for ANYONE to confirm Superintent Shore was hanging out in the United States when even Wolf admits Shore would never to this. Just as Caz inferred about one stubborn piece of evidence - this is it. If this is wrong, then the whole theory falls. Why? The same source that claimed this whole conspiracy claims Shore was in the U.S.

There is really only one theory left standing about why Andrews crossed the Atlantic - Tumblety.

Mike

[Natalie Severn]

[QUOTE]"The Pinkerton's National Detective agency has never obtained a particle of evidence against Mr. Parnell, and has never been requested by the London Times or the British government to hunt up evidence. I know of my own knowledge that Superintendent Shore has not been in this country for a number of years.[/QUOTE]

Lets not be naive here Mike,with due respect . Pinkerton"s being in the same line of business as the Special Branch would be just as keen on putting out "disinformation".

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mike,

Chicago Daily Tribune, 16th December 1888–

SCOTLAND YARD DETECTIVES SAID TO BE AT WORK IN THIS COUNTRY

"NEW YORK, Dec. 15—[Special.]—Several Scotland Yard detectives are in this country looking up evidence for the Times suit against Parnell. Fred Jarvis of Scotland Yard has been in this country and he is now at Kansas City. It was known in New York Friday last [7th December] that Chief Inspector Shore, Superintendent of the Criminal Investigation Department of the Metropolitan Police, arrived and proceeded without loss of time to Kansas City. There he was to meet with the representative of the Pinkertons and with Fred Jarvis . . ."

William Pinkerton and John Shore were old chums.

In 1876 at the Criterion Bar, London, William Pinkerton introduced Chief Inspector John Shore to Adam Worth, the Napoleon of Crime. In September 1888 William Pinkerton was in London. In 1896 Superintendent John Shore retired from the Metropolitan Police and was afterwards appointed Pinkerton’s Chief European agent.

Regards,

Simon

[mklhawley]

My point exactly Caz. A key figure in the Parnell conspiracy is Chief Inspector Shore. He, along with Jarvis and the Pinkertons, was supposedly drumming up business in the United States. If Shore was not in the United States, then the whole conspiracy is now suspect, just as you point out. In Wolf's earlier writings, he admitted this particular Shore was most likely not the Superintendent Shore of Scotland Yard, so he suggested it might be another Chief Inspector Shore. If there was not another Shore, then where does this leave us?

Sincerely,

Mike

To continue with the significance of Chief Inspector, or Superintendent (as Pinkerton puts it (contrary to Wolf's suggestion)), Shore...

Pinkerton's letter to the Associated Press was seen in the Chicago Daily News on January 19, 1889. (The entire letter could be read on page 24 of Roger's current article in the Casebook Examiner.) Part of that letter reads... "The Pinkerton's National Detective agency has never obtained a particle of evidence against Mr. Parnell, and has never been requested by the London Times or the British government to hunt up evidence. I know of my own knowledge that Superintendent Shore has not been in this country for a number of years."

Shore had written to Pinkerton from London on Aug 4, 1888. (That was on page 25 of Roger's article.)


Again just as Caz elluded to, one little stubborn fact can ruin an entire theory.

Sincerely,

Mike

[mklhawley]

(Caz) Yes, Jonathan, but even the very best historical arguments can fall down because of just one aspect that makes no sense, historically or logically.

My point exactly Caz. A key figure in the Parnell conspiracy is Chief Inspector Shore. He, along with Jarvis and the Pinkertons, was supposedly drumming up business in the United States. If Shore was not in the United States, then the whole conspiracy is now suspect, just as you point out. In Wolf's earlier writings, he admitted this particular Shore was most likely not the Superintendent Shore of Scotland Yard, so he suggested it might be another Chief Inspector Shore. If there was not another Shore, then where does this leave us?

Sincerely,

Mike

[Jonathan H]

To Caz

Thanks for that interesting rejoinder.

I totally agree that a single source can upend a theory or paradigm.

The day Adam finds a photo of Druitt attending some black-tie shindig the night of a murder I will be the first to say that my revisionist theory on Macnaghten -- he's Sherlock Holmes crossed with Sir Humphrey Appleby! -- will be exposed as fallacious.

However, I do not agree with your disagreement with R J Palmer on this point, as I think you are underestimating the immense pressure on Anderson from two directions: the anxious Home Sec. and his own ego.

[caz]

It really does not do this superb trilogy on Inspector Andrews fair justice to just pick out bits and pieces, and then claim that they show the argument is weak.

The best historical arguments take multiple sources to be measured and analysed and measured again.

Yes, Jonathan, but even the very best historical arguments can fall down because of just one aspect that makes no sense, historically or logically.

RJ argues that Anderson's reason for trying to turn Mylett's murder into an unfortunate accident was that he seriously imagined the case he was building at the time against Tumblety could not otherwise survive, because his expertise on legal matters (Anderson's that is, not RJ's ) would have told him that a competent defence lawyer would simply have observed that this suspect was not around to have committed this particular murder and that, as they say, would have been that. And what I would say to that is "cobblers".

Call me old-fashioned but I didn't think the police or the law worked like that. What was needed for a murder conviction was proof beyond reasonable doubt in any one case of murder. If anyone had been tried for two or more of the Whitechapel murders that would have been icing on the cake, but it only took one for a hanging. Any half-competent prosecution lawyer would have ripped to shreds the notion that he could not be convicted of any of the murders (no matter how conclusive the evidence) as long as he had an alibi for one of them. I mean common sense alone, if not the facts, should tell us, with people today theorising that the ripper only killed one or two of them - if he existed at all - that there was no way to conclusively link (fair use of the split infinitive there ) Mylett's death to any of the others, and the same would have applied to most if not all of them.

If Tumblety had mailed some damning evidence of his involvement in a single one of the murders to, say, a 'safe' address in America or Canada (and only the hope of finding something of this nature and being able to charge him would have made it worth making ripper enquiries about him across the pond), the fact that he couldn't be charged with murdering Mylett would have been neither here nor there.

To make the point even clearer with another obvious example, if anyone had been tried as the Whitechapel murderer, I very much doubt that they would ever - could ever - have been charged with Stride's. So having an alibi for Stride would not have foiled the chances of a guilty verdict any more than for Mylett.

Love,

Caz
X