Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Hi Jonathan,

    Hansard.

    Regards,

    Simon
    Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

    Comment


    • #62
      Yes, go on ...

      Comment


      • #63
        Hi Jonathan,

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

        Regards,

        Simon
        Last edited by Simon Wood; 10-21-2010, 04:52 PM. Reason: clarity
        Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

        Comment


        • #64
          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

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Jonathan H View Post
            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
            The Ripper's Haunts/JtR Suspect Dr. Francis Tumblety (Sunbury Press)
            http://www.michaelLhawley.com

            Comment


            • #66
              Hi Mike,

              Perhaps you should also read Hansard.

              Regards,

              Simon
              Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
                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
                The Ripper's Haunts/JtR Suspect Dr. Francis Tumblety (Sunbury Press)
                http://www.michaelLhawley.com

                Comment


                • #68
                  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 donít believe it doesnít make it just disappear, it just makes you appear blinkered. Itís 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 donít 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 Palmerís article showed the close working relationship between Anderson and Andrews and yet you believe that Andrews might report his illegal activities? That Anderson didnít trust him implicitly? This is worse than naÔve.

                  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 doesnít ďsuggest a high level of importancesĒ (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 fromÖa 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 doesnít support your pet theory. Thatís laughable.

                  Wolf.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    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?

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Thank you Jonathan.

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

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Can I get your hat, sir?

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          (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 naÔve.

                          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 naÔve and the term I use for you is denial.

                          Sincerely,

                          Mike
                          Last edited by mklhawley; 10-23-2010, 01:28 AM.
                          The Ripper's Haunts/JtR Suspect Dr. Francis Tumblety (Sunbury Press)
                          http://www.michaelLhawley.com

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            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
                            Last edited by mklhawley; 10-24-2010, 08:21 AM.
                            The Ripper's Haunts/JtR Suspect Dr. Francis Tumblety (Sunbury Press)
                            http://www.michaelLhawley.com

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Hi Mike,

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

                              Regards,

                              Simon
                              Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
                                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
                                The Ripper's Haunts/JtR Suspect Dr. Francis Tumblety (Sunbury Press)
                                http://www.michaelLhawley.com

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X