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

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Dan's article (and Wolf's arguments) was excellent, but when taking the new evidence into account, the argument is no longer sound.

Hi Mike.

Exactly what "new evidence" are you talking about?

Wolf.

[caz]

Hi All,

I understand that they had all the "goods" they needed on Tumblebum for the gross indecency charges, without needing to look into his background, and that they would need some serious "goods" if they wanted to trade those charges in for the big one - Jack the Ripper himself.

What I'm struggling a little bit with is what evidential value they hoped to put on any "goods" they could have obtained by haring across to Canada and checking out every last detail of his past. If he had anything as serious as a prostitute murder or attempted murder in it, for example, would he have been free to come over in the first place to sample the delights of West End rent boys? And if information like this was there for the finding, couldn't it have been found and sent across with any handwriting samples?

Even if the quack doc was discovered to have a record of violence as long as your arm that side of the pond, how would that have led to a conviction for a single Whitechapel murder without the necessary "goods" here at home to charge him with it? What evil smelling skeletons could they have found in his cupboard to rub his nose in and force a confession?

I'm impatient for part 3 to see what RJ has in mind.

Love,

Caz
X

[Simon Wood]

Hi Cazta Diva,

I, too, await part three with bated breath.

Regards,

Simon

[mklhawley]

Hi All,

I understand that they had all the "goods" they needed on Tumblebum for the gross indecency charges, without needing to look into his background, and that they would need some serious "goods" if they wanted to trade those charges in for the big one - Jack the Ripper himself.

What I'm struggling a little bit with is what evidential value they hoped to put on any "goods" they could have obtained by haring across to Canada and checking out every last detail of his past. If he had anything as serious as a prostitute murder or attempted murder in it, for example, would he have been free to come over in the first place to sample the delights of West End rent boys? And if information like this was there for the finding, couldn't it have been found and sent across with any handwriting samples?

Even if the quack doc was discovered to have a record of violence as long as your arm that side of the pond, how would that have led to a conviction for a single Whitechapel murder without the necessary "goods" here at home to charge him with it? What evil smelling skeletons could they have found in his cupboard to rub his nose in and force a confession?

I'm impatient for part 3 to see what RJ has in mind.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

I am going to let Stewart Evans answer one of your questions:

"...True Tumblety had fled bail, but that was in relation to offences of gross indecency which were misdemeanours and not felonies and thus did not come under the international extradition laws. Only in Canada would legislation in regard to fugitive offenders for less serious offences and breach of bail be appropriate. Tumblety could not be touched by the English police while in the USA – and he knew it." Maybe it was not entirely "goods" but personal communications in order to convince Canadian authorities in the hopes of a future Canada to England extradition. Earlier I posted a letter from Francis Tumblety sent to the Canadian Prime Minister (found by Joe Chetcutti). It almost seemed like Tumblety wanted to enter Canada again. Just think if Tumblety actually stepped foot on Canadian soil in his later years.

To Wolf:

"Hi Mike.

Exactly what "new evidence" are you talking about?

Wolf."

Hi Wolf,

I am talking about the fact that Robert Anderson initiated the investigation into Tumblety with the Brooklyn Police Chief (and not the other way around) on the same day he was in contact with the San Francisco Polic Chief (Crowley). I had never heard of this, and it contradicts the claim that Crowley initiated the contact with Anderson.

Sincerely,

Mike

[caz]

Hi Caz,

I am going to let Stewart Evans answer one of your questions:

"...True Tumblety had fled bail...

Hi Mike,

My post related to RJ's speculation that they were seeking evidence from Canada about Tumblety's past, in the hope of charging him with the WM murders, while they still had him in London on the indecency charges.

Love,

Caz
X

[mklhawley]

Hi Mike,

My post related to RJ's speculation that they were seeking evidence from Canada about Tumblety's past, in the hope of charging him with the WM murders, while they still had him in London on the indecency charges.

Love,

Caz
X

I see. When you read RJ's examples to show it was common Scotland Yard practice to do a deep investigation of serious suspects, the Whitechapel murders seem to be the perfect case for this. Recall that no one saw any of the victims being murdered in the act, which means it was going to be a case of circumstantial evidence if they ever did put someone in front of a judge. At a time when there was no convincing fingerprint, fiber, video, photo, chemical, blood type, and DNA evidence, I'm sure a deep background investigation in order to convince the judge that this man had the capacity to murder does not seem out of the question.

Why would they not have Canadian authorities do the leg work? Aside from Scotland Yard believing their inspectors do the best job, it was clear by how they commented to reporters that they did not want their hidden agendas out in the public. If the sent any communication out to Canadian authorities, then there would be a chance the press would get ahold of it. Also, a personal visit would certainly get the point across that they were serious.

Just my thoughts Caz.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Let me see if I’ve got this right.

In answer to Livia’s link to an article that Dan wrote (which touts new evidence, found by me, that Inspector Andrews traveled to Southern Ontario in order to gather evidence against Parnell and the Irish Nationalists for the Times of London) you post this:

“Dan's article (and Wolf's arguments) was excellent, but when taking the new evidence into account, the argument is no longer sound.”

When I asked you “what new evidence” (which supposedly makes the evidence that Andrews was working for the Times “no longer sound,” you then post this:

“I am talking about the fact that Robert Anderson initiated the investigation into Tumblety with the Brooklyn Police Chief (and not the other way around) on the same day he was in contact with the San Francisco Polic Chief (Crowley). I had never heard of this, and it contradicts the claim that Crowley initiated the contact with Anderson.”

Okay Mike. I’ll bite. Tell me exactly how this makes the evidence that Andrews traveled to Ontario for the Times “no longer sound.”

Wolf.

[mklhawley]

Hi Wolf,

You of all people deserve a thorough response, so here goes:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=4735&page=2

On Post 11, I responded to Livia by referring to a premise that has been used in the past. That premise being:Since Andrews never came within 100 miles of New York City, it must be concluded that he had no interest in investigating Tumblety.

I have openly doubted this premise. The reasons why are as follows:


* In Part One of Roger Palmer's article on Walter Andrews, Roger revealed to his readers that a close professional relationship existed between Robert Anderson and Walter Andrews. The evidence that Roger produced in Part One backed up his writing.

* In Part Two, Roger showed evidence that Robert Anderson initiated contact with Brooklyn's Police Chief for the purpose of acquiring more information on the Ripper suspect, Tumblety. Anderson was a man who attempted to obtain information on Tumblety in America without ever physically "coming within 100 miles of New York City." This communication that was initiated by Anderson is contrary to the statement made in On the Trail of Tumblety? Part Two:

"Scotland Yard was thus not soliciting information about Tumblety from police in North America." - Ripper Notes Issue #24 (page 44.)


Approximately 7 days after Anderson initiated this communication with the Brooklyn Police Chief, Andrews was sent to North America.


* In Part Three of Roger's article, I think Roger will tell us why Andrews' mission to North America was for the purpose of investigating into the Ripper suspect, Tumblety. I think Roger will continue to show evidence that Scotland Yard could certainly investigate into a Ripper suspect in North America "without ever coming within 100 miles of New York City." I think we will see further evidence of the relationship between Anderson and Andrews. And I think Roger will back up his words that were typed in Part One in regards to how further research conclusively demonstrates that Andrews' 1888 trip to North America had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the Special "Parnell" Commission, but strongly suggests that Evans and Gainey were correct all along: that Walter Andrews was specifically sent to North America to investigate Ripper suspect Francis Tumblety .

But since Andrews was one of three men named to lead the Whitechapel murders investigation, it should come as no surprise that that he would conduct an investigation into a Ripper suspect in 1888. And just like Anderson's investigation into Tumblety, (an investigation that Roger has showed evidence of) I think Andrews' investigation into Tumblety was also conducted without ever having Andrews come within 100 miles of New York City.


Sincerely,

Mike

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mike,

Consider this–

In November 1888 Anderson sent Inspector Fred Jarvis to North America. He arrived in New York armed with 44 warrants. He had ostensibly come to arrest and extradite Thomas Barton, wanted in England for forging London and Northwestern Railway Company stock certificates. I won't bother you here with the whole story [you can read it in Ripperologist 106]. Suffice it to say that the real purpose of Jarvis's trip was on behalf of The Times, and from November 1888 until January 1889 he was swanning around Kansas and Colorado digging up dirt and meeting in Canada with Inspector Andrews and Superintendent Shore. During these two months Thomas Barton was traced by the Pinkerton Detective Agency, who finally arrested him in Philadelphia.

Anderson had no interest in Tumblety other than him providing a handy premise for Andrews' extra-curricular activities once he had delivered Roland Gideon Israel Barnett to the Canadian authorities.

Methinks you're putting too much faith in Anderson. He's not to be trusted.

Regards,

Simon

[mklhawley]

Simon,

If I did not consider your stuff I'd be an idiot. I will definately be reading Ripperologist 106. Thanks.

Sincerely,

Mike

[caz]

...I'm sure a deep background investigation in order to convince the judge that this man had the capacity to murder does not seem out of the question.

If you say so, Mike. But I do hope RJ has a bit more than this up his sleeve, or his fellow Tumblers are going to be sorely disappointed.

More and more, this colourful quack with his large dossier (Matron!) and preference for male bonding is coming across as a convenient one for the authorities to use whenever they need a distraction.

If it looks like a quack...?

Love,

Caz
X

[mklhawley]

I'd say duck! Truth is a powerful ally and one side has her. It'll be an interesting summer to say the least. Thanks Caz.

Mike

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Hi Mike.

I think I’ve got it now. You have decided to tell people to disregard a theory on Inspector Andrews' trip to Southern Ontario, one which uses actual statements by Andrews that his trip was connected to the investigation of Irish Nationalists (I guess he was wrong about that) because you have cherry picked one sentence – Since Andrews never came within 100 miles of New York City, it must be concluded that he had no interest in investigating Tumblety – from a two pert article and have decided, in your own biased mind, that this destroys the entire theory. This logic is typical of what I have come to expect from the supporters of Tumblety.

You have clearly shown there actually is no “new evidence” which makes the theory that Dan was writing about “no longer sound.” Instead you have attempted to mislead people into thinking there is. This is also typical.

What really amazes me, Mike, is the fact that Evans and Gainey’s theory was published 15 years ago and it has been examined, studied and researched since that time. From what you, yourself, have stated, you haven’t been studying Tumblety for 15 months let alone for years yet you have decided that you have the expertise to tell people what they should or shouldn’t believe. Unfortunately, you don’t have either the expertise or knowledge to do so.

For example:

“In Part One of Roger Palmer's article on Walter Andrews, Roger revealed to his readers that a close professional relationship existed between Robert Anderson and Walter Andrews. The evidence that Roger produced in Part One backed up his writing.”

Do you even understand that this statement is the equivalent of you shooting yourself in the foot? Apparently not.

Robert Anderson started his official life at Dublin Castle investigating Irish Nationalist and Fenian activities.
He was the spymaster who handled Thomas Billis Beach (Henri Le Caron) the British agent who infiltrated Ultra Irish Nationalist and Fenian groups in the US.
Anderson was brought to London in 1867 to continue his secret work against Irish Nationalist and Fenians, a job he did, clandestinely, until 1888, when he became Assistant Commissioner CID at Scotland Yard.
In 1887 it was Anderson who wrote a series of articles for the London Times entitled “Behind the Scenes in America,” which were published as part of the “Parnellism and Crime” series, which attempted to prove that Charles Stewart Parnell and the Irish Party were supporters of terrorism (Anderson was so chummy with the London paper that Sir Henry Mathews once described him as “a tout for the Times”).
When Anderson was appointed Assistant Commissioner, Scotland Yard, he immediately took a vacation to Switzerland but later travelled to Paris because, it has been suggested, he was working to gather evidence against Parnell.
After the resignation of Sir Charles Warren, James Monro, the head of Irish intelligence as it pertained to London, and the head of Special Branch, which worked against Irish Nationalists and Fenians, and Robert Andersons’ close personal friend, became Commissioner of Police. It was at this time that Inspector Andrews, with his “close professional relationship” to spymaster Anderson (who had spent the last 25 years of his life working against Irish Nationalism and only a little over a month at Scotland Yard) was sent on a secret mission to Southern Ontario. A trip where he is reported to have had secret meetings with several men who, it appears, were gathering information against Parnell and the Irish cause.

You would be better served by suggesting Andrews didn’t know Anderson from Adam.

Wolf.

[mklhawley]

Wolf,

Are you trying to tell me I am bias? Guilty as charged.

Mike

[mklhawley]

Hi Mike,

Consider this–

In November 1888 Anderson sent Inspector Fred Jarvis to North America. He arrived in New York armed with 44 warrants. He had ostensibly come to arrest and extradite Thomas Barton, wanted in England for forging London and Northwestern Railway Company stock certificates. I won't bother you here with the whole story [you can read it in Ripperologist 106]. Suffice it to say that the real purpose of Jarvis's trip was on behalf of The Times, and from November 1888 until January 1889 he was swanning around Kansas and Colorado digging up dirt and meeting in Canada with Inspector Andrews and Superintendent Shore. During these two months Thomas Barton was traced by the Pinkerton Detective Agency, who finally arrested him in Philadelphia.

Anderson had no interest in Tumblety other than him providing a handy premise for Andrews' extra-curricular activities once he had delivered Roland Gideon Israel Barnett to the Canadian authorities.

Methinks you're putting too much faith in Anderson. He's not to be trusted.

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon,

So, the 44 warrants had nothing to do with The Times, but Thomas Barton an entirely different issue. He was a busy man.

Mike