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

[mklhawley]

Wolf,

I want to make one thing absolutely clear. I will never be in the class of ripperologists as you are. Your research and attention to detail are amazing and very convincing. Case in point, Carrie Brown was murdered ripper-style (somewhat) just on the other side of the new Brooklyn Bridge, which was walking distance to Tumblety's Brooklyn residence and also walking distance to Tumblety's NYC residence. All three locations are within about two miles of each other. Tumblety could easily have been in NYC from Hot Springs in time to commit this murder. Even so, I am convinced he (or any ripper suspect) was not involved in Brown's murder, because of your articles.

My background is scientific research, which focuses more upon empirical evidence than even ripperology, so I actually disagree with the notion that I do not look at the evidence. Even before Roger's article came out, I rejected the notion of eliminating the possibilitly of Tumblety being considered a serious JTR suspect, since we are dealing with limited evidence. It's not your research or logic that I have a difficult time with, it's your conclusion in this particular case. Even though you reject Roger's conclusion, it fits the evidence just as well as yours, but in a much simpler fashion.

I will stick to Roger's conclusion.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Again, Wolf according to your pet theory, Andrews and other Scotland Yard officials were unlawfully ordered by Anderson (you thought Monro too, but we now know Warren was in charge)…

Warren offered his resignation (for the third time) on the 8th of November and on the 10 it was accepted. From this point on Warren was a lame duck just waiting to retire from the Police. His replacement was Anderson’s old friend James Monro who would take over as Commissioner on the 1st of December.

When did Anderson start his plan to send Andrews to Toronto? After Warren’s resignation and after Anderson’s old friend Monro had already been chosen to replace him. When did Andrews eventually sail to Canada? The day before Warren officially stepped down. When was Andrews’s “official” job escorting Barnett to Canada finished? 9th of December, 1888, when he handed Barnett over to Inspector Stark on the dock at Halifax. What did Andrews then do? He traveled to Toronto. Who was the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police when Andrews arrived in Canada, handed over Barnett, traveled to Toronto and then spent a week in Southern Ontario doing some secret job? James Monro.

You seem to want to suggest that since Warren was still in office when the mission was planned that he somehow still had control after the mission was put into action even though he was out of a job at that time.

The Parnell commission was NEVER a criminal investigation, which means Scotland Yard did not have the authority to get involved.

And yet Chief Inspector Littlechild, of Scotland Yard, traveled to Chatham Jail in March of 1888 and interviewed Thomas Scott and Michael Harkins, the Jubilee bombers, in order to try and get them to give evidence linking Parnell and his supporters with the bomb plots. This was a politically motivated mission (which he “did not have the authority to get involved” in) aimed at Parnell yet, according to you, it could never have happened. Norma has also pointed out that Littlechild was watching Kitty O’Shea’s house in order to gather evidence of Parnell’s affair with O’Shea. When the O’Shea divorce hit the news it caused the downfall of Parnell and the splintering of the Irish Parliamentary Movement. This was also a politically motivated assignment (which he “did not have the authority to get involved” in) aimed at Parnell. In 1887, Anderson, before he took the job at Scotland Yard, ran a sting operation using Beach in an attempt at entrapping Irish Members of Parliament into showing support for Fenian and Clan na Gael activities. This was a political operation, not a criminal investigation, run by Anderson aimed at harming the Irish Movement in Parliament. This was the man who sent Inspector Andrews to Southern Ontario. I will discuss Scotland Yard’s involvement in the Jubilee bombing plot below.

If this web of conspiracy actually did occur, why did opposing parties such as the Liberal Party not latch onto this and publically expose a major scandal (just as Jonathan pointed out)? …especially when your own newspaper sources claimed to be all over it.

You were asked to read Hansard, which you apparently have failed to, or refuse to, do. Questions were raised in Parliament about Andrews’s and Jarvis’s trips to North America. The Government denied knowing anything about what was considered a police matter. Plausible deniability was maintained by the cover stories that Andrews went to Toronto in order to deliver Barnett and Jarvis was sent in order to arrest Barton. Short of going to Canada and finding the reporters to whom Andrews had talked and compelling them to provide evidence, what were the opposition parties supposed to do? They couldn’t prove anything without evidence.

However, this argument, that because the opposition parties didn’t “latch onto this and publically expose a major scandal,” somehow is proof that there wasn’t a “web of conspiracy” (or, that inaction from the opposition proves there was nothing to act against) is a double edged sword. If Tumblety was a “prime suspect” in the Ripper murders then why did British newspapers “not latch onto this and publically (sic) expose a major scandal? …especially when your own newspaper sources claimed to be all over it.” The very fact that they didn’t must be proof, given your very own argument, that Tumblety wasn’t a prime suspect.

There is a difference between political crimes and political activities hated by the Salisbury government, but in your writings you group them all together as ‘Irish Movements’. Roger clarifies this:
Legitimate Irish Movements -
1) Parnell’s efforts were legitimate
2) Land League – Prior to it being outlawed, it was legitimate (rent strikes & boycotting)
Scotland Yard’s involvement considered illegal.

You, and apparently Palmer, obviously have little clue as to what the political environment was in Britain especially as it concerns the “Irish Question (and I know, you said you read a book once and so you consider yourself an expert). Of course Parnell’s efforts were legitimate. He was a duly, and legitimately, elected Member of Parliament whose aims, to achieve Home Rule for the Irish, was not just legitimate but eminently worthy and long past due. However, this went against the entrenched feelings of the more Conservative elements in British politics, which included absentee Irish landlords, who wanted desperately to keep the economic and political status quo. Extra ammunition against Parnell was provided by Irish terrorist organizations who supported him and his aims. Parnell became tarred with the terrorist brush. Why do you think the Times, although advised against it, went after Parnell? When Parnell had asked Parliament that the Times, reasonably, be made to prove what it had claimed about him, Why do you think the Conservative Government supported the call for the Parnell Commission, to look into the supposed illegal terrorist activities of Parnell and his supporters, instead? Why do you think Littlechild was used to attempt to get evidence against Parnell? This was all an attempt to crush the legal Irish Movement by getting rid of its leader by any means necessary.

As for the Land League, this is kind of like saying the Mafia isn’t a criminal organization because it was originally formed to aid and protect Sicilian peasants. The LL was originally formed using money provided by the Clan na Gael. Extreme elements within the LL were linked to beatings, arson, livestock mutilations and murders. As terrorism increased a “land war” or “land revolution” was declared. By 1882 (6 years before Andrews’s trip to Southern Ontario) the flow of money from America, the main means of financial support for the League, was diverted into the coffers of the Clan, at first to finance the dynamite campaigns but, later, to line the pockets of Clan leader Alexander Sullivan and his cronies. So, by 1882 supporters of the Land League in North America were actually financing terrorism in Britain but somehow you think it would be illegal for Scotland Yard and British anti-terrorism police sections to do anything about this because at one time the Land league “was legitimate.”

Sure, Anderson hated all Irish movements and even involved himself in stopping Parnell’s agenda, but his justification for this matches what he believed he was hired to do. His efforts had stopped a political crime, the Jubilee Plot, so it worked.

You should probably do a lot more reading on this subject before you attempt to write about it. I recommend Christy Campbell’s Fenian Fire which does an excellent job in showing how secret anti-Irish terrorism elements within the British Government, like James Monro, knew all about the Jubilee Bomb Plot from its inception, the plot was headed by British double agent General Francis Millen, one of Anderson’s spies, and yet refused to stop it. They allowed, illegally one would think, for the bombers to travel to London with explosives and to set up the plan before Scotland Yard moved in and arresting them. The whole thing was a set up in order to trap as many dynamite supporters as possible and then see if they could snare Parnell in their web. Of course according to you none of this could have happened because Monro, Anderson and Scotland Yard could never be involved in an illegal political operation (one which potentially threatened the life of the Queen, the Royal family, and the entire British Cabinet).

One last thing… You attempted to argue against my point that top North American officials were being solicited by saying Anderson would only deal with equivalent top officials. Why would a top official such as Anderson even expend the effort on a minor suspect? He could have easily had one of his subordinates communicate with North American officials. Before I retired as a commander in the Navy, when my unit required top attention I as the boss did the calling and soliciting. It worked. In Anderson’s case, he immediately got the attention of the Chiefs of Police. It worked.

Actually what I said was that Anderson, who was seeking information on Tumblety in connection with the Ripper murders, and you keep suggesting for some strange reason that I don’t support this view when I, demonstrably, and repeatedly, have shown that I do (I guess it’s easier to attack what you wish I had said rather than attack what I actually said) would naturally contact police officials of equal or better rank. This was normal procedure and, when dealing with such men, he would naturally do so himself, or at least an aid would be told to do it in his name, and that nothing should be read into this.

I can understand why you don’t understand this since reading things that aren’t supported by the evidence is what you do.

Wolf.

[mklhawley]

Hi Mike,

For goodness sake, sell your first born and use the proceeds to buy a back issue of Ripperologist 106.

Regards,

Simon

Well, I do have six kids, so that may be an option.

Mike

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mike,

For goodness sake, sell your first born and use the proceeds to buy a back issue of Ripperologist 106.

Regards,

Simon

[mklhawley]

Chief Inspector Shore

Greetings all,
I have transcribed an article from The New York Times, January 23, 1889. Notice the last paragraph about Chief Inspector Shore and the Pinkerton’s denial of being involved with any Scotland Yard conspiracy of searching for evidence against Parnell for the London Times:

AN ENGLISH FORGER CAUGHT.
TRACED BY SCOTLAND YARD DETECTIVES TO PHILADELPHIA.
The capture in Philadelphia of Thomas Barton, an Englishman charge with forgery to the extent of $100,000 was reported yesterday by the Pinkertons. Barton was, up to 1886, they say, a silk weaver in Macclesfield, Cheshire, England. He was a co-Trustee with his mother, under his father’s will, and on account of this office had possession of scrip certificates of stock of the London and Northwestern Railway Company. He was thus easily able to forge his mother’s name to the various deeds of transfer of the stock, and so dispense of the securities to his own profit. The present cash value of the stock is put at #20,000.
In July, 1886, Barton came to this country, and in the following March is wife and his two sons sailed for Halifax, en route for Montreal. Inspector Fred Jarvis of Scotland Yard, London, came here in November, 1888, to trace Barton and secure his arrest. For this work he secured the aid of Pinkerton’s National Detective Agency.
It was found that Barton had lived for some time at 426 Poplar street, saying that he was about to leave Philadelphia. His wife was, after a long hunt, found near Brandon City, Manitoba. Jarvis going there, secured information which enabled him to arrest Barton yesterday at a boarding house known as the “Bradford Arms” at Germantown, Penn. In this he was aided by Superintendent R. J. Lindon of Pinkertons. The prisoner seems to have little money. He has been working as a weaver in this country. He is held for extradition.
In speaking of Inspector Jarvis the Pinkerton officers here say: “The published statements that he and Chief Inspector Shore of Scotland Yard were, with the assistance of Pinkerton’s Agency, searching for evidence against Parnell in the interest of the London Times are not true. Chief Inspector Shore has not been in this country for a number of years. The Pinkerton Agency has never obtained a particle of evidence against Parnell and has never been requested to hunt up such evidence by the London Times or the British Government.”


Chief Inspector Shore is a central figure in the Parnell conspiracy, since he was supposedly one of the Scotland Yard officials in the United States to assist the Times. Generally, public denials from officials have the benefit of “plausible deniability”, but the Pinkerton statement that Chief Inspector Shore has not been in this country for a number of years does not fit this pattern and could easily have been confirmed. Did this occur? If we find out that the Pinkerton statement is correct, then any prior public statements claiming Shore was involved can now be considered suspect.

Sincerely,
Mike

[mklhawley]

(Wolf) Evidence of Anderson and Scotland Yard being illegally involved in the fight against the Irish Nationalist movement exists, although you apparently want to ignore this fact because it goes against your pet theories regarding Tumblety. Continually saying that YOU don’t believe it doesn’t make it just disappear, it just makes you appear blinkered. It’s as if you actually believe that police everywhere and in every age are, or were, angels who have never done anything illegal or underhanded. That they don’t hold grudges or hatreds or have any political leanings. This is at best naive.

One of the things you fail to understand is that Scotland Yard CID worked hand in glove with the Special Irish Section against the Fenian Movement when necessary. Men like Abberline, Andrews and Jarvis had all done so and Jarvis had even worked in America in an undercover operation. This is today analogous to police working against Islamic terrorism. For the perceived greater good, and with a shared belief system, police will step over the line into illegality. The ends justifies the means.

Apparently, though, you believe that if Anderson wanted to conduct a secret and illegal mission he would choose just anyone at hand, regardless of whether he knew them, had worked with them and could trust them. Part 1 of Palmer’s article showed the close working relationship between Anderson and Andrews and yet you believe that Andrews might report his illegal activities? That Anderson didn’t trust him implicitly? This is worse than naïve.

Oh, I see you replied to my post.

Again, Wolf according to your pet theory, Andrews and other Scotland Yard officials were unlawfully ordered by Anderson (you thought Monro too, but we now know Warren was in charge) to hunt up witnesses for The Times’ “Parnell” Commission in London. The Parnell commission was NEVER a criminal investigation, which means Scotland Yard did not have the authority to get involved. If this web of conspiracy actually did occur, why did opposing parties such as the Liberal Party not latch onto this and publically expose a major scandal (just as Jonathan pointed out)? …especially when your own newspaper sources claimed to be all over it.

There is a difference between political crimes and political activities hated by the Salisbury government, but in your writings you group them all together as ‘Irish Movements’. Roger clarifies this:

Legitimate Irish Movements -
1) Parnell’s efforts were legitimate
2) Land League – Prior to it being outlawed, it was legitimate (rent strikes & boycotting)
Scotland Yard’s involvement considered illegal

Criminal Irish Movements –
4) Fenians – I.R.B. in Ireland and the Fenian Brotherhood in America –advocating violence and terrorism
5) Dynamite Party, Clan na Gael, etc. – advocating violence and terrorism
Scotland Yard’s involvement considered legal, because they were police matters.

Yes, Anderson did secret ‘Fenian’ work because that was his job. He dealt with ‘political crime’ when using Millen (coincidentally, he was the night editor of The New York Herald – a questionable source for your pet theory) and Beach.

Sure, Anderson hated all Irish movements and even involved himself in stopping Parnell’s agenda, but his justification for this matches what he believed he was hired to do. His efforts had stopped a political crime, the Jubilee Plot, so it worked.

Notice how Monro’s denial comment in 1910 also conforms to this: “My principle throughout has ever been in police matters, politics have no place—and this principle I followed during the whole time I was at Scotland Yard,…”.

On top all this information that conflicts with your pet theory, we now know Anderson solicited information on Tumblety from North American officials at the peak of the murders and at the same time Andrews’ North American agenda was being finalized. Why would Anderson ask for information if he was only concerned about Tumblety’s gross indecency charges? It is now convoluted logic to claim Anderson had no Tumblety agenda.

One last thing… You attempted to argue against my point that top North American officials were being solicited by saying Anderson would only deal with equivalent top officials. Why would a top official such as Anderson even expend the effort on a minor suspect? He could have easily had one of his subordinates communicate with North American officials. Before I retired as a commander in the Navy, when my unit required top attention I as the boss did the calling and soliciting. It worked. In Anderson’s case, he immediately got the attention of the Chiefs of Police. It worked.

The term you use for me is naïve and the term I use for you is denial.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Jonathan H]

Can I get your hat, sir?

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Thank you Jonathan.

I will give your thoughts and observations the consideration I think they deserve.

[Jonathan H]

Wolf,

You are a thoroughly biased secondary source because you are defending an absolutist position against the methods of historical analyses, which is by nature biased but is less so if it is openly provisional, and acknowledges alternate interpretations of limited and contradictory data.

Andrews/Parnell is your own 'pet' theory which you have invested a great deal of time and effort into establishing an entrenched, dogmatic position -- now being challenged.

When sources disagree a researcher has to make a judgement call based on a reading of all of them. Your falling into you own Col. Dunham trap, mate.

I presume I can say what I like since you never, ever acknowledge my posts
-- which is your right, of course -- but suggests that your supposed to be intimidating, or something, the way I have noticed that people tiptoe around your presumably brittle sensibilities like your the frigging Death Star of Ripperology.

Well, I find your line of counter-argument unconvincing, and so personal as you obviously loathe Palmer -- and what, we are supposed to ignore that as a factor in your rebuttals?

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Wolf, I do understand this, because I've read the Parnell letters just as I've read your articles. I certainly agree that Anderson was against the Irish National movement, I just reject the belief that he would instigate a hughe conspiracy by employing multiple Scotland Yard officials (requesting financial support through legal channels), any of whom couldhave easily reported his illegal plans. Because of this, it seems quite logical for Anderson to merely author letters in the politcal battle of Home Rule. He could now comfortably exercise plausible deniability (admitting it only much later).

I do not disagree with this at all. Fenian dynamite campaigns are part of criminal investigations. That's a far cry from political conspiracies involving Scotland Yard officials. ...and your last sentence is suggesting all of those subordinate Scotland Yard inspectors, such as Andrews, would allow themselves to be pawns, possibly ruining any future career in Scotland Yard.

Evidence of Anderson and Scotland Yard being illegally involved in the fight against the Irish Nationalist movement exists, although you apparently want to ignore this fact because it goes against your pet theories regarding Tumblety. Continually saying that YOU don’t believe it doesn’t make it just disappear, it just makes you appear blinkered. It’s as if you actually believe that police everywhere and in every age are, or were, angels who have never done anything illegal or underhanded. That they don’t hold grudges or hatreds or have any political leanings. This is at best naive.

One of the things you fail to understand is that Scotland Yard CID worked hand in glove with the Special Irish Section against the Fenian Movement when necessary. Men like Abberline, Andrews and Jarvis had all done so and Jarvis had even worked in America in an undercover operation. This is today analogous to police working against Islamic terrorism. For the perceived greater good, and with a shared belief system, police will step over the line into illegality. The ends justifies the means.

Apparently, though, you believe that if Anderson wanted to conduct a secret and illegal mission he would choose just anyone at hand, regardless of whether he knew them, had worked with them and could trust them. Part 1 of Palmer’s article showed the close working relationship between Anderson and Andrews and yet you believe that Andrews might report his illegal activities? That Anderson didn’t trust him implicitly? This is worse than naïve.

That fact that the Brooklyn and New York SENIOR authorities were solicited by Anderson (suggesting a high level of importances) at the same time as a correspondence between San Francisco's Chief Crowley and Anderson clearly suggests Anderson doing the soliciting. The "information" that you claim suggested Crowley doing the initiating is actually very weak.

Exactly who do you think a senior policeman, the Assistant Commissioner of the London Metropolitan Police, would contact when looking for information? Some Brooklyn Desk Sergeant? Some unknown New York patrolman on the beat? No, he would contact the highest police official he could and seek his help. This doesn’t “suggest a high level of importances” (sic) but merely the way things were, and probably still, handled.

Anderson contacted the Chief Constable of Toronto in order to discuss the Barnett extradition and the Chief Constable was answering questions about such mundane things as what Toronto paid its officers or what sort of uniform they wore or could he vouch for a certain individual who wanted to become a New York Policeman. These questions were put to the Chief Constable by other Chiefs of Police or high police officials like Chief Inspector Byrnes (who asked the last question).

As for the evidence that Chief Crowley contacted Scotland Yard this comes from a San Francisco news report whereas the evidence that Palmer uses to refute this comes from…a San Francisco news report. As I said, you and Palmer believe one is correct merely because it supports your pet theory while the other is wrong because it doesn’t support your pet theory. That’s laughable.

Wolf.

[mklhawley]

Hi Mike,

Perhaps you should also read Hansard.

Regards,

Simon

You mean the transcripts of those parlimentary guys always yelling at each other? That sounds like a few of our threads!

Mike

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mike,

Perhaps you should also read Hansard.

Regards,

Simon

[mklhawley]

Agreed, Norma, except that this 'secret business' was leaking like a sieve with Andrews allegedly giving it away to North American reporters that he was there for the Parnell business.

Damn those reporters asking tough questions! eg. What are you doing here?

The very fact that Andrews trip did not become a major scandal, by alert Liberals, Irish moderates and their tabloid adherents, shows what that was all worth.

Also, Littlechild catching Parnell with a mistress is a whole different business. This was Victorian England, and though the 'love-nest' of course suited the prejudices of Tory cops who hated Parnell, adultery was a crime, legally and morally, and many politicians, Tory and Liberal -- and the Prince of Wales -- copped it on that one.

This needs to be repeated (I wish I came up with it!),

Because using Scotland Yard officials for political reasons was illegal and just as Jonathan comments upon about the press was already privy to the Parnell possibility, why did it not become a major scandal if true? According to Roger, there were many elected officials who would have loved to use this info? Does this not increase the complexity of the Parnell theory, thus diverge even more from parsimony?

Sincerely,

Mike

[Natalie Severn]

Jonathan,
What was Chief Inspector Littlechild, head of D division CID,thinking of then,standing about in the cold ,spying on Parnell when an underling from Scotland Yard could have spied on them just as well in such a straightforwardly "criminal" case?
Why waste your top CID man like that?Come on Jonathan, Littlechild was acting highly politically under the instructions of Anderson,to humiliate and destroy Parnell.Anderson"s intention was the destruction of Parnell---and Home Rule!
Norma

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jonathan,

I thought you might enjoy all the heated political debate about Andrews and others' trips to America.

Regards,

Simon