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

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mike,

"Scotland Yard fully expected Tumblety to arrive in Canada"?

If this was true [which I very much doubt], Scotland Yard must have been dumber than a box of spanners.

Why would Tumblety, allegedly suspected of involvement in the WM, have voluntarily travelled to Canada, a country from which he could have been extradited?

Tumblety may have been a lot of things, but stupid wasn't one of them.

I'd take care using 'Roger' and 'convincing' in the same sentence.

Regards,

Simon

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

even Wolf admits Shore would never to this.

Funny, I don’t remember ever saying that “Shore would never do this,” and, in fact, I didn’t.

Phrases like “this would tend to show,” and “it seems doubtful” do not translate into the absolute “never” as you have suggested, Mike. Instead they show a cautiousness on my part regarding this point. Especially since there was a confusion about who was being talked about. Was it “Chief Inspector Shore” (who I found a reference to in a later newspaper article) or was it “Superintendent Shore?” And, actually, Simon and I don’t disagree on this point.

My article, which only briefly touched on Shore and Jarvis, came out first. Simon’s article, in which he did a great deal more in depth research, was on the subject of Shore and Jarvis, and came out after mine. Simon’s work, therefore, supersedes mine, not only being more current but in its breadth and depth of research.

Earlier, when we were debating Anderson’s anti Parnell activities, I considered posting the gist of a conversation I had with Alan Sharp at the last Baltimore Conference. I decided against it because I couldn’t offer any specifics but I can now.

Alan, the author of the excellent Jack the Ripper and the Irish Press (Ashfield Press, 2005), which I highly recommend, is, or at least was, writing a book on Sir Robert Anderson and, as Alan had read my Inspector Andrews articles, we talked about Anderson and Parnell. I mentioned the Pinkerton’s letters to various newspapers and Alan laughed at these saying Pinkerton was lying about never having worked for the British Government against the Irish in America. That indeed they had.

So, according to Alan, Pinkerton was offering disinformation, as Norma and Simon have stated, about his detective agencies secret work for the British Government against the Irish. If that was a lie, and there is some evidence that Shore did indeed travel to America, then can you put your faith in Pinkerton’s words?

Wolf.

[mklhawley]

Hi Mike,

"Scotland Yard fully expected Tumblety to arrive in Canada"?

If this was true [which I very much doubt], Scotland Yard must have been dumber than a box of spanners.

Why would Tumblety, allegedly suspected of involvement in the WM, have voluntarily travelled to Canada, a country from which he could have been extradited?

Tumblety may have been a lot of things, but stupid wasn't one of them.

I'd take care using 'Roger' and 'convincing' in the same sentence.

Regards,

Simon

It's interesting how certain arguments involving JTR have as their premise less-than-intelligent Scotland Yard officials, but when Tumblety is involved they were brilliant and illegally & successfully deceptive against their own country's laws.

I agree that Tumblety was no dummy (as evidence by his business success), but I doubt he'd know the difference between individual county's laws on extradition. Maybe he did, but that's not the issue. Did Scotland Yard believe Tumblety was smart enough? Well, they certainly underestimated his ability to successfully jump bail and leave the country under their very noses. How embarrassing for the top police force to lose their man in the most publicized criminal case yet to make the papers.

Mike

[mklhawley]

Funny, I don’t remember ever saying that “Shore would never do this,” and, in fact, I didn’t.

Phrases like “this would tend to show,” and “it seems doubtful” do not translate into the absolute “never” as you have suggested, Mike. Instead they show a cautiousness on my part regarding this point. Especially since there was a confusion about who was being talked about. Was it “Chief Inspector Shore” (who I found a reference to in a later newspaper article) or was it “Superintendent Shore?” And, actually, Simon and I don’t disagree on this point.

My article, which only briefly touched on Shore and Jarvis, came out first. Simon’s article, in which he did a great deal more in depth research, was on the subject of Shore and Jarvis, and came out after mine. Simon’s work, therefore, supersedes mine, not only being more current but in its breadth and depth of research.

Earlier, when we were debating Anderson’s anti Parnell activities, I considered posting the gist of a conversation I had with Alan Sharp at the last Baltimore Conference. I decided against it because I couldn’t offer any specifics but I can now.

Alan, the author of the excellent Jack the Ripper and the Irish Press (Ashfield Press, 2005), which I highly recommend, is, or at least was, writing a book on Sir Robert Anderson and, as Alan had read my Inspector Andrews articles, we talked about Anderson and Parnell. I mentioned the Pinkerton’s letters to various newspapers and Alan laughed at these saying Pinkerton was lying about never having worked for the British Government against the Irish in America. That indeed they had.

So, according to Alan, Pinkerton was offering disinformation, as Norma and Simon have stated, about his detective agencies secret work for the British Government against the Irish. If that was a lie, and there is some evidence that Shore did indeed travel to America, then can you put your faith in Pinkerton’s words?

Wolf.

Well Wolf, it sounds like we can no longer put faith in your earlier conclusions thanks to later research. It looks like you have reconsidered your conclusions on Shore (I knew that would happen). I believe we can now do this with Roger's updated research. Of course, your hatred for him seems to have biased your judgment about his research, but that is understandable.

I am still waiting for any of you to demonstrate Superintendent Shore being in the United States other than from a Irish-biased source.

Sincerely,

Mike

[caz]

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.

Hi Jonathan,

But RJ did not argue that Anderson’s actions over Mylett were pressure or ego-related. He thought they were the product of a keen legal mind; one that appreciated that the case against Tumblety could tumble if the cause of death was not changed from murder to accident.

Anderson could have had an ego the size of Croydon, for all it would have to do with RJ’s reasoning. The man still had a brain in his head, and if he thought there was a fair chance of getting Tumblety charged with one or more of the Whitechapel murders (and that’s a might big ‘if’ right there, that has yet to be resolved) he also knew that the evidence needed to obtain a conviction would need to be strong enough to withstand a heck of a lot more than the ghost of poor Mylett, shaking her non-gory locks at the jury.

I can see how you managed to miss my point, because you make the same mistake with Druitt that RJ, unwittingly, has Anderson making with Tumblety. You seem to think that if Druitt was attending some function on the night of ‘a’ murder, your case for Mac knowing the truth, and for Druitt being guilty of any of the 1888 murders, would necessarily be lost, regardless of why he was suspected.

Anderson knew that Tumblety could not have murdered Mylett. So if he believed that the quack could still be the ripper, and was hopeful of obtaining the evidence for a conviction, it follows that he, like most people on the planet, didn’t personally see Mylett as a ripper victim. So why would he have seen her as an impediment? Tumblety was certainly never going to be charged with causing her death, and it’s highly unlikely that any suspect would have been. If anyone had tried to argue that the man in the dock could not be the ripper (despite the overwhelming evidence that Anderson would surely have obtained ) because he didn’t kill Mylett, they’d have been laughed out of court.

Hi Mike,

So what 'potentially damning evidence' do you think the police could have hoped to find across the pond, for Tumblety's involvement in the murders in Whitechapel? I still haven't figured this out yet, and nobody seems to want to address it.

Love,

Caz
X

[mklhawley]

(Caz) Hi Mike,

So what 'potentially damning evidence' do you think the police could have hoped to find across the pond, for Tumblety's involvement in the murders in Whitechapel? I still haven't figured this out yet, and nobody seems to want to address it.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

Roger addresses this. If I read his article correctly, his point is that during a time when there was no powerful fingerprint/fiber/DNA evidence in a case where no one saw the murder (as in the JTR case), Scotland Yard would search deep into the life of a serious suspect. He uses case history to support this. Maybe Scotland Yard did not know what they were going to come up with, but they were certainly not getting anywhere in Whitechapel. One way they could have tried in London would be to follow a suspect and Tumblety himself admitted he was being followed and watched. By November, that did not work.

Mike

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mike,

Scotland Yard embarrassed by Tumblety's guile in outwitting them? I doubt it.

He would have required more than a little help in order to successfully jump bail, evade all the Special Branch railway station and seaport watchers in England and France and reach New York in the midst of a huge US press fanfare.

Scotland Yard officials "less-than-intelligent"? On the contrary.

Regards,

Simon

[caz]

Another thought for Jonathan...

If you find Anderson's reasoning on Mylett, according to RJ, plausible, have you thought through the repercussions to your own theory if Druitt's 'people' had been able to reassure themselves of his innocence, because while he was doing his best Ophelia impression in the Thames at Chiswick, the real ripper was apparently at it again, throttling a prossie in Poplar?

Love,

Caz
X

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

So what 'potentially damning evidence' do you think the police could have hoped to find across the pond, for Tumblety's involvement in the murders in Whitechapel? I still haven't figured this out yet, and nobody seems to want to address it.

Excellent point. What, exactly, could they expect to find in Southern Ontario that would prove Tumblety guilty of the Whitechapel Murders? Even if they found some evidence that he might have committed a murder in North America, let say, or that he confessed to someone (that, what, he was thinking of going to London and killing some prostitutes?) this could not be used in evidence against him in a British court. So what exactly were they hoping to find against Tumblety that would aid in his arrest or conviction?

So why go to all the trouble of manipulating an extradition so as to send a man to Toronto on a secret mission, one which Toronto was not consulted about and where Andrews didn’t tell the Toronto Constabulary what he was up to (which is an absolutely ridiculous scenario if he went there to gather information about a murder suspect) then have him travel home after only a week? Exactly how was this going to accomplish anything?

As for Tumblety and extradition from Canada, Tumblety, and everyone else who lived in North America (let alone the world), would have known that The Dominion of Canada, although a sovereign country was still part of the British Empire; still had its Governor Generals (the Head of State) appointed by London (they were all British, the first Canadian appointed to the job was Vincent Massey in 1952); still followed British laws (the highest court in the Canadian land was still the Privy Council in London) and still had no flag of its own but flew the Union Jack. Tumblety would certainly have known that he faced extradition if he set one foot on Canadian soil.

You could drive a fleet of trucks through holes in the “Andrews traveled to Toronto after Tumblety” theory. Holes which neither you, Mike, nor R.J. Palmer have even bothered to acknowledge let alone paper over.

Wolf.

[Scott Nelson]

Maybe they were just trying to verify the uteri-in-the-jars story with witnesses.

[Abby Normal]

Maybe they had made the connection of the story at the inquest of the American Doctor trying to procure uterus specimans with their "Dr T".

[mklhawley]

Excellent point. What, exactly, could they expect to find in Southern Ontario that would prove Tumblety guilty of the Whitechapel Murders? Even if they found some evidence that he might have committed a murder in North America, let say, or that he confessed to someone (that, what, he was thinking of going to London and killing some prostitutes?) this could not be used in evidence against him in a British court. So what exactly were they hoping to find against Tumblety that would aid in his arrest or conviction?

Speaking of driving a fleet truck through a theory, the same goes for the Parnell conspiracy you’ve been championing. If the Parnell conspiracy (an illegal act by Scotland Yard under their own country’s laws) was true and Jarvis and Superintendent Shore (never in the US by the way) along with the Pinkertons were drumming up witnesses in the US and Andrews was doing the same in Canada, where’s the beef? Where were all of the witnesses they produced? They produced absolutely zero witnesses. Why would Scotland Yard create such a conspiracy and have nothing to show for it? Keep in mind, Scotland Yard recently went through an overhaul. Let’s look at a clear fact, Chief Inspector Anderson solicited Tumblety information from NYC and Brooklyn and at the same time San Francisco was handing off handwriting samples of Tumblety (quite obvious that Anderson solicited from San Francisco). On a case that NO ONE saw the murders, handwriting samples would be excellent evidence. Since there was evidence that Tumblety owned land in Canada and frequented Toronto until 1888, I’m sure there were possible official documents with Tumblety’s handwriting to be found in Canada. Why did Andrews spend a week? He could easily have been waiting for the US documents to get to him, via, Jarvis and Niagara Falls.

Oh, and by the way, I’m still waiting to see how Superintendent Shore would have been hanging out in the US, an idea you considered implausible until I called you upon it.

Mike

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Speaking of driving a fleet truck through a theory, the same goes for the Parnell conspiracy you’ve been championing. If the Parnell conspiracy (an illegal act by Scotland Yard under their own country’s laws) was true…

Myself and others have already posted on the boards evidence that members of Scotland Yard (Monro, Littlechild, Anderson and Jarvis) were aiding the Times against Parnell and been involved in other dirty tricks against the Irish Movement. Instead of addressing these points you have simply ignored what we have posted and lamely stated that Scotland Yard would never do such a thing because it was illegal. Apparently you are unable to counter the evidence provided to you and this is your fall-back position, one which you recite over and over again like a broken record.

In the files of the Times there are notes made, apparently, by Times reporter John Woulfe Flanagan, the man who wrote the Parnellism and Crime articles. These notes, barely decipherable according to Christy Campbell, deal with the Times' efforts to obtain witnesses against Parnell and they contain names of potential Irish witnesses such as Eugene Davis, Patrick Egan and General Millen. They also contain two interesting, and highly recognizable names – “Anderson” and “Monro.” Why would they be named in connection with attempts by the Times to obtain witnesses against Parnell? Any connection would be “an illegal act by Scotland Yard under their own country’s laws.” Too bad you couldn’t explain this to Flanagan and the Times.

In order to send Inspector Andrews to Toronto some one, apparently Anderson, illegally manipulated the extradition of Roland Gideon Israel Barnett so that Canada had to pay for Andrews’ trip. According to you this could not have happened because this was “an illegal act by Scotland Yard under their own country’s laws.” To bad you couldn’t have told Anderson that.

In fact, Scotland Yard waited so long to deliver Barnett that by the stipulations of the Fugitive Offenders Act of 1881 (44 and 45 Vict, cap 69) Barnett should have been granted his freedom three days before he and Andrews arrived in Halifax. Andrews ignored the extradition law and handed over Barnett anyway. But of course, he couldn’t have done this because this would be “an illegal act by Scotland Yard under their own country’s laws.” Too bad you couldn’t have explained this to Barnett.

…and Jarvis and Superintendent Shore (never in the US by the way) along with the Pinkertons were drumming up witnesses in the US and Andrews was doing the same in Canada, where’s the beef? Where were all of the witnesses they produced? They produced absolutely zero witnesses. Why would Scotland Yard create such a conspiracy and have nothing to show for it?

Two things. First. please post your evidence that Shore was “never in the US.” You originally asked where was the evidence that Shore was in the US and Simon pointed you towards his article in Ripperologist. You ignored this. You asked again where was the evidence and this time Simon pointed you towards a newspaper article, giving you the papers name, the date of the article and even the page it was on. You have ignored this as well and now state that Shore was not in the US, apparently because you have refused to look at the sources provided to you. Are you really looking for someone to carefully spoon feed you the information so that you don’t have to go to the trouble of finding out you are wrong? My guess, based on your past record here on the boards, is that you don’t actually want the information you just want to be able to ignore it and continue to say that it doesn’t exist (unfortunately this seems to be the bedrock on which Tumblety supporters base their case).

Second. BY late 1888 the Times’ case against Parnell was going badly. The paper was desperately trying to find witnesses within the Irish movement to come to London and give information against Parnell. Anderson talked to Beach and Beach came forward and gave evidence to the Commission. Representatives of the Times talked to General Francis Millen in New York and he agreed to give evidence but only if an agreement could be made concerning compensation and matters such as his safety. These negotiations went on for several weeks but Millen died in New York in April, 1889, before he could travel to London. Patrick Sheridan, living in Colorado, was offered an incredible sum of money to give evidence – £20,000 – and negotiations with him were also ongoing. He eventually declined to give evidence against Parnell after the Clan passed a death sentence on him. The Buffalo Irish labourer, who claimed that not only could he produce two witnesses, ex-members of the Irish Invincibles, but that he also had documentary proof linking Parnell with the Phoenix Park murders, turned out to be a hoaxer. Before this conclusion was reached, however, negotiations with him went on for several weeks as well.

What is the point of all this? These are all examples of “the beef,” as you put it. All these negotiations were happening at the same time – the exact time Andrews, Jarvis and Shore were in the US. Anderson definitely was working in the interest of the Times when he talked to Beach and both Jarvis and Shore’s names were linked to the negotiations with Sheridan and Andrews had a meeting in Detroit possibly with the man who was leading the talks with Millen as well as his mysterious meeting near Buffalo with an “Irishman” who could have been the Buffalo labourer.

Also, where’s the beef in regards Tumblety? What happened to all the evidence against Tumblety Andrews supposedly dug up? ? Where were all of the witnesses he produced? He produced absolutely zero witnesses. Why would Scotland Yard create such a conspiracy and have nothing to show for it?

Let’s look at a clear fact, Chief Inspector Anderson solicited Tumblety information from NYC and Brooklyn and at the same time San Francisco was handing off handwriting samples of Tumblety (quite obvious that Anderson solicited from San Francisco). On a case that NO ONE saw the murders, handwriting samples would be excellent evidence. Since there was evidence that Tumblety owned land in Canada and frequented Toronto until 1888, I’m sure there were possible official documents with Tumblety’s handwriting to be found in Canada. Why did Andrews spend a week? He could easily have been waiting for the US documents to get to him, via, Jarvis and Niagara Falls.

What information did Anderson illicit from NYC? Chief Inspector Byrnes, who knew Tumblety for many years, laughed at the idea that he could be the Whitechapel Murderer.
What information did Anderson illicit from Brooklyn? Chief Campbell, who knew Tumblety for many years, ridiculed the idea that he could be the Whitechapel Murderer.
Why would Anderson contact San Francisco, of all places, when Tumblety had only lived in that city for seven months some 28 years earlier? Although he did visit the city briefly in 1875 (ie 13 years before the Whitechapel Murders) he wasn’t well remembered and was confused with another quack doctor. The obvious explanation, at least to the intelligent observer, is that Anderson didn’t contact San Francisco but, as stated in the San Francisco papers, San Francisco contacted Anderson.

What, exactly, was Scotland Yard going to do with samples of Tumblety’s handwriting? What purpose would it serve? How could it been seen as “excellent evidence?” Evidence of what? How, exactly, would it prove in a court of law that Tumblety was the Whitechapel Murderer?

Oh, and by the way, I’m still waiting to see how Superintendent Shore would have been hanging out in the US, an idea you considered implausible until I called you upon it.

You are absolutely right. You really got me. I guess that after I read the evidence of Shore’s arrival in the US given in Simon’s 2009 article I should have gone back in time and changed what I had written in 2005. I’m really sorry that this has confused you so badly.

Wolf.

[Jonathan H]

To Caz

I don't understand ...?

Do you mean Druitt's family?

Anybody in the press claiming that another victim was by 'Jack', or that the police were still certain he was out there, or anything claiming that the real suspect must be a doctor, or that he is really in an asylum would surely reassure the Druitts -- or the brother -- that they were mistaken.

Yet, over two years later, when the story leaked, the family still 'believed', it became a local Tory MP's 'doctrine', and the 'certain facts' leading to a 'conclusion' by a police chief about 'that remarkable man'.

Of course they could all be wrong, but what I am getting at whatever they, the family, originally believed, trumped -- rightly or wrongly -- reports of subsequent victims and suspects which potentially exonerated their deceased member.

[caz]

Hi Jonathan,

My point in a nutshell.

So if Anderson likewise believed he could get the goods on Tumblety and haul his ass into court on a Whitechapel murder charge, why would he fanny about making a fool of himself over Mylett's murder, desperate to get it officially changed to accidental death, but failing? RJ has Anderson fretting that his case against the herbal quack was done for if the defence could wave Mylett's murder under the jury's nose.

Well someone really should have told Druitt's nearest and dearest. So much for them having a barrister in the family. They'd have hugged themselves with relief and kept any remaining suspicions to themselves forever if it were that simple to get the Whitechapel Murderer off just for being elsewhere when Mylett met her death.

And Druitt was certainly elsewhere by then. He'd already kept his own appointment with the Grim Reaper.

Love,

Caz
X