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

[Jonathan H]

Yes, go on ...

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jonathan,

Hansard.

Regards,

Simon

[Jonathan H]

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.

[Natalie Severn]

Fair enough, Norma.

What convinces me -- among many other factors -- the other way, is Palmer's point about the context; eg. the political trouble for the Tories if the Liberals could show they had used the police on such an explosive political errand.

Good point Jonathan.But remember the work was,of its essence "top secret"!

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Mike,

My point is that Anderson's reason to send Andrews to North America can be argued with the availble information that, at least in part, had Tumblety on the agenda.

Yes, I agree.In fact I think Tumblety clearly was of interest to Anderson but it is very difficult to know how interested Anderson was and whether this was to do with him being a suspect for JtR or as a suspect for something illegal like money laundering or gun running for the fenians----or maybe both---possibly he viewed him as a slightly unhinged "messenger" for the fenians who could have also been Jack!
Best Wishes,
Norma

[mklhawley]

Hi Mike,


I disagree with you here Mike.The CID [special Irish branch ] covered issues that were specifically "political" such as determining where a terrorist threat might be coming from and acting to prevent that threat becoming a reality.
Anderson,in his new role as Assistant Commissioner CID,was able to have his cake and eat it. As an ardent Unionist, he was personally bitterly opposed to any deeply suspicious of any kind of "Home Rule" or "self rule" for Ireland whether led by the Member of Parliament for Meath, Charles Parnell, with his vision of "Home Rule" by the "Parliametary" process or by the process of armed insurrection /terrorism that numbers of Fenians preferred. Therefore ,because Parnell had closely associated himself with Michael Davitt in the mid 1870"s who was the leader of the Land League he was doomed to be on Anderson"s "hit list" or "terrorist list"-although Parnel had never believed in methods of terrorism. However because Gladstone had criminalised the Land league in 1881 with his "Coercian Act", Parnell was imprisoned in Kilmainham jail with Davitt and the "land Leaguers" in 1881 .This was because the "Coercian Act"made it possible for anyone suspected of supporting the land League to be imprisoned and heldwithout trial.
So Anderson,deeply suspicious of Parnell"s and deeply opposed to his main agenda,was determined to dish the dirt.
It is therefore in no way implausible or unlikely that Inspector Andrews was sent on what the now CID chief ,Anderson, would have seen as an "anti-terrorist"[+anti-Parnell,Home Rule] mission to North America.
If you really think that Robert Anderson as Head of the CID of Scotland Yatd would never have involved himself in "political work" , how come he sent Chief Inspector Littlechild CID ,in 1889 to "watch the house" where Parnell and his mistress Kathy O"Shea were conducting an adulterous affair?
In fact it was these Reports on his adulterous relationship presented by Chief Inspector John Littlechild in Anderson"s private papers that put the nail in Parnell"s coffin as the leader of Home Rule and helped destroy Parnell"s Home Rule Party and Home Rule itself.
And you try to tell us Robert Anderson"s CID would not have acted "politically"?

Nicely put and I do not disagree with you that Anderson's line between anti-terrorist work and political work was fuzzy. Anderson himself solicited information on Tumblety from the top cops in New York and San Francisco at the peak of the murders and as they were finalizing Andrews' trip. On top of this, a Scotland Yard detective followed Tumblety in New York. Even Wolf writes in 'On the Trail of Tumblety' about the Scotland Yard detective in New York following Tumblety (even though he does not discuss the detective's conversation with the bartender). Minister Smith made the comment that Tumblety was being followed while in London/Birmingham, which conforms to Tumblety's own words.

My point is that Anderson's reason to send Andrews to North America can be argued with the availble information that, at least in part, had Tumblety on the agenda.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Mike,

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.

I disagree with you here Mike.The CID [special Irish branch ] covered issues that were specifically "political" such as determining where a terrorist threat might be coming from and acting to prevent that threat becoming a reality.
Anderson,in his new role as Assistant Commissioner CID,was able to have his cake and eat it. As an ardent Unionist, he was personally bitterly opposed to any deeply suspicious of any kind of "Home Rule" or "self rule" for Ireland whether led by the Member of Parliament for Meath, Charles Parnell, with his vision of "Home Rule" by the "Parliametary" process or by the process of armed insurrection /terrorism that numbers of Fenians preferred. Therefore ,because Parnell had closely associated himself with Michael Davitt in the mid 1870"s who was the leader of the Land League he was doomed to be on Anderson"s "hit list" or "terrorist list"-although Parnel had never believed in methods of terrorism. However because Gladstone had criminalised the Land league in 1881 with his "Coercian Act", Parnell was imprisoned in Kilmainham jail with Davitt and the "land Leaguers" in 1881 .This was because the "Coercian Act"made it possible for anyone suspected of supporting the land League to be imprisoned and heldwithout trial.
So Anderson,deeply suspicious of Parnell"s and deeply opposed to his main agenda,was determined to dish the dirt.
It is therefore in no way implausible or unlikely that Inspector Andrews was sent on what the now CID chief ,Anderson, would have seen as an "anti-terrorist"[+anti-Parnell,Home Rule] mission to North America.
If you really think that Robert Anderson as Head of the CID of Scotland Yatd would never have involved himself in "political work" , how come he sent Chief Inspector Littlechild CID ,in 1889 to "watch the house" where Parnell and his mistress Kathy O"Shea were conducting an adulterous affair?
In fact it was these Reports on his adulterous relationship presented by Chief Inspector John Littlechild in Anderson"s private papers that put the nail in Parnell"s coffin as the leader of Home Rule and helped destroy Parnell"s Home Rule Party and Home Rule itself.
And you try to tell us Robert Anderson"s CID would not have acted "politically"?

[mklhawley]

The thing you fail to understand is that Anderson offered his services to the Times and then wrote his articles expressly with a political agenda involving Parnell in mind. His explanation, given in 1910, and containing several self-serving lies, that he wrote for the Times in order to stop anti-terrorist activities was just an attempt at deflecting the storm of outrage the information that he had written the articles had caused. Anderson wrote the articles with one thing in mind, help the Times to defeat Parnell and the Irish Nationalist movement.

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).

It’s almost as if you think that every policeman in the entire city of London was involved in the Whitechapel Murders investigation at the expense of all other crimes and duties. This is ridiculous. In 1894 Inspector Littlechild, writing in his memoirs, mentioned three matters which were of “great importance” to Scotland Yard. One was the Great Turf Frauds of 1876, another was the Whitechapel Murders and the third, surprise, surprise, was the Fenian dynamite campaigns . If you don’t think long time anti-Irish Nationalists and spy masters like Monro and Anderson would do anything in their power to cripple or destroy the Irish movement then you obviously need to do a lot more reading on the subject.

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.

Actually, it is fairly clear that information provided by San Francisco was not solicited by Anderson but offered by Chief Crowley. Yes, I did read part 2 of Palmer’s article but his “evidence” to dispute this fact is laughable. However, your point is well taken that Anderson certainly was interested in Tumblety as a suspect and did contact the Brooklyn and New York Police about him. The interesting thing, though, is that the heads of both police forces knew Tumblety and both laughed at the suggestion that he might have been the Ripper (I’m sure these valuable police opinions regarding Tumblety appear in part 3 of Mr. Palmer’s article).

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.

Mike

[Jonathan H]

Fair enough, Norma.

What convinces me -- among many other factors -- the other way, is Palmer's point about the context; eg. the political trouble for the Tories if the Liberals could show they had used the police on such an explosive political errand.

[Natalie Severn]

Thanks Mike,
They may be simpler and more logical but still may not give the sp on the dirty goings on behind the scenes in Scotland Yard.Did you know Warren resigned in a state of terrible high dudgeon over Anderson and Monro"s "secret service" work? That Warren greatly valued the "Spy Master General" Edward Jenkinson and was furious about the pair of them plotting his downfall?
Another time Mike---its late here!
Cheers,
Norma

[mklhawley]

So, are you trying to say that Warren would support the recruitement of Scotland Yard officials for a political agenda (Parnell), an illegal act?
posted by Mike

Mike,
Inspector Andrews was in the Criminal Investigation Dept [CID] of Scotland Yard---like Littlechild. Therefore wouldn"t it surely have been in order for Robert Anderson,as the newly appointed Assistant Commissioner at Scotland Yard in charge of the Criminal Investigation Dept[CID] to send one of his men on an "anti "terrorist"[Anti Fenian] mission to North America-while "helping out "over Barnet?
Norma

There are two issues that I believe Roger is correct and Wolf and you are not; Anderson working on anti-terrorism plots was perfectly legal and appropriate since it dealt with criminal investigations, but ordering Scotland Yard officials/subordinates for the Parnell issue was quite illegal, especially under the nose of his boss, Warren. Warren would never have approved of it. Anderson justified his authoring of those Times articles with anti-terrorism excuses, something which was pertinent to his job. The political Parnell stuff was not. In my opinion, Roger's answers are simpler and more logical.

Mike

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Jonathan,
Yes, me too--- I have a lot of admiration for Roger Palmer and have enjoyed many of his past writings.I have also found all three of his essays full of fascinating information and detail.
However I happen to disagree with him about the true reason Inspector Andrews was sent to North America at that rather delicate moment in British history.I believe Anderson as head of CID in December 1888 was behind sending him to North America and that this was most likely to have been concerning the need to get Patrick Sheradon to testify against Parnell at the Special Commission . Patrick Sheradon,living at that time as an Irish exile in North America ,since the Phoenix Park assassinations ,was playing cat and mouse over the matter.He was pretty crucial, and he was certainly offered huge financial inducements by The Times to testify .Such testimony might have saved Anderson"s most precious spy, Beach [aka Le Caron], having to go into the box at the Special Commission -which is what he had to do ofcourse in the end,-as Sheradon wouldnt do it.This forced Le Caron to go into hiding for the rest of his life. Anderson had lost him as his invaluable "Informant B"

[Natalie Severn]

So, are you trying to say that Warren would support the recruitement of Scotland Yard officials for a political agenda (Parnell), an illegal act?
posted by Mike

Mike,
Inspector Andrews was in the Criminal Investigation Dept [CID] of Scotland Yard---like Littlechild. Therefore wouldn"t it surely have been in order for Robert Anderson,as the newly appointed Assistant Commissioner at Scotland Yard in charge of the Criminal Investigation Dept[CID] to send one of his men on an "anti "terrorist"[Anti Fenian] mission to North America-while "helping out "over Barnet?
Norma

[Jonathan H]

What R J Palmer has done is mount a compelling, convincing and very interesting argument regarding the choice, we face, between Andrews' mission being about Parnell, and thus using the Whitechapel crimes as something of a cover/diversion, or the reverse?

For me it is the latter option which is much more convincing, that it was not about Parnell but the Ripper.

Much more convincing for me but then I never doubted it because Dew had written that Andrews was one of the detectives on the Whitechapel case and Jack Littlechild -- without relying at all on Andrews' trip which he arguably steers Sims away from -- viewed Tumblety as a top suspect of 1888, though not necessarily the fiend. Plus Macnaghten via Sims in 1907 seems to be disseminating bits and pieces of the once prime suspect, split between the Drowned Toff and the American medical student.

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.

Try A J P Taylor and his controversial argument on the origins of the Second World War, for example.

I also do not think that Palmer writes anything that is 'laughable'.

Quite the contrary; he is judicious at considering competing explanations and then explaining lucidly why he chooses the path he does.

The characterisation of his recent work as simply blinkered and doctrinaire (my words) is inaccurate -- because he presents sources and possibilities which go against his own line of thinking. He presents so much material that a reader can consider alternate interpretations.

Palmer's detractors might consider that their arguments/counter-arguments would be much stronger if they did likewise?

[Natalie Severn]

The fact you have failed to understand is that just because Anderson may not have been working on Fenian activities in London (which was seen as a seperate issue), he was still greatly involved in monitoring Fenian activities everywhere else. Especially in North America where he sent Andrews.

Wolf.

This is very true.Anderson was a political animal from the moment he started work in Dublin Castle.As far back as 1867, Anderson employed James Thompson , a policeman , in anti -Fenian operations, and he "re-employed" him with his wife Martha in 1887 ,the year Anderson wrote the articles for The Times defaming Parnell.Thompson and his wife Martha went to Boulogne and met Millen there .