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

[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]

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

[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

[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.

[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

[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

[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

[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".

[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

[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]

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,

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,

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,

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,

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