Just what did Scotland Yard send to other Police Agencies around the globe?

[Mayerling]

G'day Jeff



I need to give some issues in your post a bit more head time before I respond, but in regards to the police view of the serial nature some news reports here in Aus [and I'll have to go back and search them out] were referring to the "fourth murder" before the Double Event, so at least some were considering a series to be in play fairly early.

G'Day GUT,

There are plenty of issues my comments brought up, and I welcome any feedback. This matter about police communications is really bugging me.

Awaiting all responses.

Jeff

[Mayerling]

Slightly off thread but there are some reports that a man named Williams was at one stage detained in England "on suspicion", this was reported as some type of link between Deeming and Jack [Williams being one of about 9,999 aliases he used] does anyone know of such an "arrest". Not specifically of deeming but of someone named Williams.

I am aware that one of Fred Deeming's alias apparently was "Albert Williams", but I'm unaware of any comments in 1888-90 about such a suspect. Unfortunately, in the wake of the Deeming-craze for information in 1892 all sorts of information about a link occurred. I traced it in an essay once that got published in "Medicine, Science, and the Law" called "The Original Suspect". While interesting, it is weak - extremely weak.

Jeff

[Mayerling]

I think the question is an interesting one, but not necessarily on the global scale. I've often wondered if there are any further files or pieces of information about the case scattered amongst local police areas. For instance when checking the story of George Hutchinson I assume some correspondence was sent between the Met and Romford.

Hi Jason,

You have hit part of the nail on the head there - what did non - Scotland Yard police forces receive and did any of them save the material.

One of the problems (and it is not solely one for police archives) is that the value of such archives is not necessarily so strong as to encourage preservation. In my criminal history library in my house are books on two murder cases (one quite well remembered) that occurred in my native borough of Queens in New York City. These are the 1897 "Guldensuppe" mutilation murder in Woodside (resulting in the execution of Martin Thorn in 1898), and the really notorious Snyder - Gray Case of 1927 (the basis for "Double Indemnity" by James Cain), which was in Middle Village near Jamaica). The records for both are incomplete at best, and much has to be based (especially on the 1897 case) on newspaper reports. The reason is that the New York City police threw out files of old cases for many years, especially when those cases were successfully solved or at least reached trial level. It is true that the City Archives has kept (on microfilm) the newspaper clipping albums of the District Attorney's Office for New York County (Manhattan) for the period 1890 - 1920 or so, but it is only that county. I believe that this was of some use some time back for research in the murder of "Old Shakespeare" in 1891. The NYC does have a police museum with some interesting physical evidence of crimes and mysteries - an exhibit they had at the Surrogate Court Building twenty years back had the pitiful looking "rope ladder" that supposedly was used by government witness Abe Reles in 1941 when he fell from a window at the "Half Moon Hotel" in Coney Island, before he testified on the leadership of "Murder Incorporated" (it was suggested that Reles decide to try to flee from his high floor hotel room using this "ladder" which would not have been very useful; more likely he was thrown out of the window by or with the compliance of the police who were supposed to be protecting him). I do not know how extensive the Police Museum's files on old cases are.

Jeff

[GUT]

I am aware that one of Fred Deeming's alias apparently was "Albert Williams", but I'm unaware of any comments in 1888-90 about such a suspect. Unfortunately, in the wake of the Deeming-craze for information in 1892 all sorts of information about a link occurred. I traced it in an essay once that got published in "Medicine, Science, and the Law" called "The Original Suspect". While interesting, it is weak - extremely weak.

Jeff

G'day Jeff

I agree it's week, I just find the whole "industry" that grew around Deeming fascinating, t was another Aus news report and I just wondered if there was even a sniff of truth or 110% BS. With his range of Aliases [and I think at last count I'd found about 20] coupled with the sheer number of people questioned in Whitechapel it is highly likely that someone with a similar name was looked at as JtR.

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Judging from the newspaper accounts (especially regarding Dr. Tumblety's career) British police had been in contact with their Canadian opposite numbers and the American and (to some extent) French police regarding the Doctor's movements.

British police in contact with the Canadian authorities regarding Tumblety? That would be new information if true.

Wolf.

[Mayerling]

British police in contact with the Canadian authorities regarding Tumblety? That would be new information if true.

Wolf.

Hi Wolf,

I was under the impression that there has been some discussion about how a Scotland Yard detective went to Canada (officially on some other matter) but that it looks possible it was concerning Tumblety. If I am mistaken I apologize, but if I'm correct verify it is so.

Jeff

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Hi Jeff.

I was under the impression that there has been some discussion about how a Scotland Yard detective went to Canada (officially on some other matter) but that it looks possible it was concerning Tumblety. If I am mistaken I apologize, but if I'm correct verify it so.

In early December, 1888, Inspector Walter Andrews arrived in Canada escorting Roland Israel Gideon Barnett, a con man and bank embezzler wanted in Toronto, Ontario. Barnett was handed over to the Toronto Police on the pier at Halifax, Nova Scotia. Andrews was then free to travel to New York, where Tumblety was living, and conduct any investigation he needed to. He didn't do this. Instead Andrews got on the train with Inspector Stark of the Toronto Police and the prisoner, Barnett, and travelled to Toronto. As this journey included a brief stop in Montreal, Andrews was free to leave the train and conduct any investigation he needed to there. He didn't do this either, but continued on to Toronto.

While in Toronto Andrews conducted some sort of secret business which took him across Southern Ontario and even into the US at Buffalo and, possibly, Detroit. Whatever this mission was, it did not include the Toronto Police. They stated that they were in the dark as to what Andrews was up to (why the secrecy if Andrews was merely doing normal police work on a murder case?).

After about a week Andrews left Toronto and headed back to Halifax and a boat back to Britain. However, before he left, Andrews stated in the Toronto Daily Mail that he had “obtained some important clues into the Parnell case– things that I never dreamt of before. But I can say no more, so don’t press me.” So, in Andrews’ own words he had been in Southern Ontario looking for evidence against Charles Stewart Parnell, the Irish leader, at the time of the Parnell Commission. This was, apparently, his secret mission. It had nothing to do with Tumblety or the Whitechapel Murders Investigation.

A thorough search, by me, of the Toronto Police records, found in the City of Toronto Archives, show that there was no correspondence between Scotland Yard and the Toronto constabulary dealing with the Whitechapel Murders and Tumblety’s name does not appear anywhere. There is correspondence between the Toronto Chief of Police and Robert Anderson concerning Inspector Andrews but all of it deals with the extradition of Barnett and Andrews escorting the prisoner back to Canada. Nothing else.

On his way home Andrews was forced to leave the train at Montreal because of poor weather conditions. While there he visited the chief of the Montreal police. It has been claimed that this had something to do with Tumblety but, as I pointed out, if Andrews had any business regarding Tumblety in Montreal he could have attended this earlier, rather than on his way home.

While in Montreal Andrews was interviewed by several local reporters and, once again, Andrews stated that his visit had something to do with Irish Nationalists and Parnell. However, one newspaper stated that Andrews had “received orders from England to commence his search in [New York City] for the Whitechapel murderer.” (my emphasis). No other Montreal paper appears to have printed this information for some curious reason. Either way Andrews only stayed overnight in Montreal, which suggests whatever supposed business we are told he had with the Montreal Police didn’t take up too much of his time. He travelled to the train station and there, once more, was interviewed by a gaggle of reporters. He then got on his train, in the presence of these reporters, and headed, not to New York, but instead continued on the Halifax and his ship home. There obviously was no order to “commence a search” (so, apparently whatever he had been doing in Southern Ontario had nothing to do with Tumblety or the Ripper Murders) in New York for the Whitechapel Murderer. This was a lie and there is absolutely no actual evidence that Andrews’ mission was nothing more than what he, himself claimed it was: something in connection with Charles Stewart Parnell and the Parnell Commission.

Wolf.

[Mayerling]

Hi Wolf,

By any chance can you guess or do you have any idea what Andrews may have learned about Parnell for the Commission? The Commission was trying to look into the letters supposedly by Parnell that the Times of London published - letters suggesting Parnell supported the Phoenix Park Assassinations. I take it that if Andrews was concentrating on this he picked up some suggestive information linking Parnell with American Fenian organizations (like "Clan Na Gael"). I am curious about how much Andrews had now before having to return to Halifax by that ship. If he might have gone at one point to Buffalo, and perhaps on to Detroit, well that is a large distance to cover in a day or so (like six hundred miles or so). Maybe two days to make such a trip one way in 1888.

Jeff

[Jonathan H]

Andrews was not hunting for dirt on Parnell

From 'Inspector Andrews Revisited Part III: International Man of Mystery' by R J Palmer, published in 'The Casebook Examiner' Issue Four, October 2010:

'If we are to accept the premise that Andrews went to America on behalf of "The Times", a necessary link in the chain of evidence is to show he had been authorized to do so by senior officers at Scotland Yard.'

'To state that this meant that Monro was "against the Irish movement" implies that he would have been equally willing to allow the illegal use of Scotland Yard detectives to conspire against the entirely legal Home Rule movement through collusion with "The Times". There is little evidence that this was Monro's attitude, and, indeed, we have his views on the matter.' p.13

Anderson claimed in a 1910 letter that his writing of the Parnell letters had Monro's approval. Tipped off by Macnaghten, the latter vehemently denied this in a letter to "The Times":

'"The alleged statement of Anderson to an interviewer that it was arranged between him and me that he should write ... is absolutely incorrect ... 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 ... whether the government was Liberal or Conservative ..."' p. 15

Sir Charles Warren was actually still, by a few weeks, the Commissioner when Andrews was sent on his North American trip, not quite yet Monro.

'[Sir Charles] Warren, the military man, had a strong aversion to 'secret work' and would have vigorously resisted any attempt by his subordinates to engage Scotland Yard in any politically motivated chicanery. The record is quite clear on this. Throughout the first half of 1888, Warren fought bitterly with Monro, believing he was spending too much time and anti-Fenian work. ... Given such attitudes it is clearly ridiculous to suggest that Warren, who had already announced his resignation in Nov 1888, would risk a political scandal, not to mention his own reputation, by authorizing a nefarious mission to ruin the Parnellites.' p. 16

' ... what isn't revealed [in mundane contemporaneous records] is why Andrews stayed in Toronto for a full eight days inclusive, and thus we are left entirely in the dark as to why he was in the city.' p. 17

'By December 19th, however, Andrews lingered in and around Toronto for another week, and "The Mail" now exuded a far more conspiratorial tone. Under the title "What They Are After" and subtitled "The Scotland Yard detective Works 'The Times' Case" and would be the earliest allegation that Andrews was actually in Canada to drum up witnesses for the Parnell commission ... "Now" [Andrews] said, "as I am leaving, I do not mind telling you that I have obtained some important clues in the Parnell case--things I never dreamed of before. But I can say no more, so don't press me." ... But Inspector Andrews is not the only officer of Scotland Yard in America present on a similar mission. Inspector Fred Jarvis, a bosom friend of his, and also Chief Inspector Shore, of the same department, are in the United States hunting evidence. It is said for over three years three of Pinkerton's most expert men have been at work on the Irish National Societies.'


There are more examples by Palmer of adverse local media reports exposing Andrews as a stooge for the anti-Parnell brigade.

What Palmer does is show us the primary sources, in detail, where Andrews is quoted as admitting that he is there to obtain evidence, documents and/or witnesses against Parnell as really a supporter of terrorism. That therefore "The Times" has not committed a libel against this Irish politician, who was supposedly campaigning for a peaceful transition to some kind of Irish independence.

You cannot help but begin to question the veracity of these 'scoops' for the following reasons:

1. Could Andrews, a highly regarded professional, really be that inept, incompetent and indiscreet as to give the whole game away about the Parnell imbroglio?

Isn't the cover story that he is there for the Ripper?

Why doesn't this blundering idiot then use it?

2. Supposedly confirming this version of events are two hopelessly biased sources: Patrick Boyle, a pro-Fenian and editor of 'The Irish-Canadian', and R.B. Teefy treasurer of the Toronto branch of the Irish National League. The latter made the incendiary claim that witnesses had been lining up for Andrews buy, so as to perjure themselves before the Parnell inquiry (although the bait has apparently not been taken).

3. A piece in 'The New York Herald' of Dec 23rd 8888 is suspiciously similar in wording to the one in 'The Mail', with just the city of Montreal subbing for Toronto (and the second version hedging its bets with the title: 'The Alleged Indiscretions of an English Detective'.) The night editor of the NY paper was none other than 'General' Frank Millen, who was a:

'... Fenian skirmisher, extraordinaire, member of the Can na Gael, sometimes profiteer in the pay of Robert Anderson (and later Edward Jenkinson)--the same Millen whom Assistant Met Police Commissioner James Monro would later name as the mastermind behind the Jubilee dynamite plot of 1887. In a strange but perhaps significant twist, it is also known that Millen himself was in negotiation with Joseph Soames of 'The Times' to give evidence before the Commission. As pointed out by journalist Christy Campbell, 'The New York Herald's' owner, James Gorden Bennett, 'delighted' in hiring such rabble rousing characters, filling 'The Herald's' office with more Irish rebels than a Clan-na-Gael picnic.' p. 23

4. On Jan 16th the same paper published an even more outlandish tale that Andrews, Jarvis and Shore had gone so far as to conspire with Irish nationalists to blow up a ship in New York Harbour.

That ruins the credibility of the other accounts, surely?

5. Robert Pinkerton publicly denied the story of his agency's connection to all these shenanigans, finishing with 'Inspector Andrews is unknown to us' p. 24

6. The similar article in 'The New York World' and 'The Boston Globe', Dec 22nd and Dec 23rd respectively, called 'Polluted Hands', claimed that Andrews had already done 'dirty work' against the League in England and Ireland which is highly unlikely (his known movements show him in London investigating criminal cases of theft) and the source for this is R.B. Teefy.

Mundane records show that the article is wrong about Andrews' movements:

'Thus, at the time Andrews was supposedly soliciting Irishmen in Montreal, he was actually three hundred miles away in Toronto ... This leaves the veracity of the article in grave doubt, but, nonetheless, it goes on to describe secret meetings with a 'resident detective' in Toronto named 'Sketchely', and the subsequent travels of Andrews around the Great Lakes region.' p. 26

Thus Palmer has established that the agenda, the details and the sources of these newspapers accounts are all questionable -- especially as it all hinges on Anderson sending an idiot with a big gob (also the physical description of Andrews in this article does not match the real detective, suggesting further falsity, or that they were trailing the wrong man?)

'In truth, those who have put faith in the veracity of these and similar accounts are seemingly unaware that 19th century news reports dealing with Irish nationalism were notoriously unreliable. Not only are there many examples of entirely bogus 'interviews' being published, but the nationalist press frequently printed out-and-out misinformation solely designed to embarrass the British government.' p. 28

Palmer provides examples to back up this statement (eg. 'interviews' with William Lomasney who had actually blown himself up, and Scotland Yard were in no doubt about his demise.)

7. The radical, pro-Irish Liberal, Henry Labouchere, asked in the Commons if Andrews had met with the agent Henri Le Caron (real name Thomas Miller Beach) and the Home Sec. the definitely inept Henry Matthews replied ambiguously.

This is used as evidence by detractors that therefore Andrews did meet Caron, even though it would mean that Matthews was also giving the game away to a hated Liberal opponent, and that Anderson had betrayed his agent, Miller, by revealing his true identity to a police detective.

But the biggest negative against this theory is that Caron was not in North America at the required date to meet Andrews; he was already in England attending to his dying father.

Palmer provides several primary sources to back this up (including the record of the father's death). He also shows that in the Commons, Matthews was much more definitive responding to Labouchere's further claim that Jarvis had been doing the same as Andrews. The answer was no.

Monro, furthermore, was moved to write to "The Times" on April 19th, 1890, agreeing with the Home Sec:

' ... Since I became Assistant Commissioner of Police in 1884 until now, neither Inspector Jarvis nor any other officer of the Metropolitan Police has been at any time within many hundred miles of either Kansas or Colorado, nor has any officer of the force been in America assisting 'The Times', directly or indirectly, in connection with their case before the Special Commission'.

Palmer shows from other primary sources that Irish agents had probably mistaken a Canadian private detective for Jarvis, so the Liberal politician was wrong on both counts.

Labouchere was humiliated, had to pay legal costs, and issue a public apology.

As Palmer argues, for those newspaper reports -- who were known to fabricate to advance their political agenda -- to be true we have to accept that Anderson, Monro, Pinkerton, Miller et al. lied (and lied for years and years) and that Andrews was so useless he forgot his Whitechapel cover story and admitted the truth, to the sworn enemies of the anti-Irish.

A police detective, moreover, who had nothing to do with Irish affairs but who was, according to Walter Dew, working the Ripper case [Timothy Riordan fails to mention this vital source].

Plus as Palmer argues 'where are his results' if Andrews was in Canada on an illegal Parnell fishing expedition?


Did Andrews meet with Canadian law enforcement, presumably about Tumblety if it was not about Parnell?

From the 'St Louis Republican', Montreal, Dec 22nd 1888:

'... It was announced at police headquarters today that Andrews has a commission in connection with other Scotland Yard men to find the murderer in america. His inaction for so long a time, and the fact that a man, suspected of knowing considerable about the murders left England for this side three weeks ago, makes the London police believe "Jack" has left the country for this." p. 42

Palmer argues that '... it is known that Andrews did meet with Montreal Police Chief George Hughes that afternoon ... In fact, it is uncertain how long Andrews stayed in Montreal: one account has him leaving on the 20th, another on the 22nd ... Andrews may well have stayed in Montreal for two days.' ps. 42-3

Thus plenty of time to confer.

Why Canada?

Why do a background on a prime Ripper suspect check there?

Anderson may have mistakenly believed Dr T was an Irish-Canadian.

It has been argued that this seems extremely flimsy because Tumblety had not been back to that country for thirty years.

Palmer counter-argues that this is not so, and provides primary sources to back it up.

George Harcourt wrote to 'The Mail' on Nov 22nd 1888 claiming that Tumblety had been there in Toronto, in 1883, because he had personally ordered a coat from his shop -- and was a hard customer to forget:

' ... He was in the store several times, and being of striking appearance, excited our curiosity. He was over six feet in height, stout and dark. He was possessed of plenty of money and showed us several very valuable diamond rings which he carried in his pocket. ... we have no doubt that this is the same Dr. Tumblety ...'

Both 'The Mail' and 'The Globe' claimed on Nov 23rd 1888 that Tumblety had been in Toronto in Jan 1888:

'Dr. Francis Tumblety who was arrested in London recently on suspicion of being implicated in the Whitechapel murders, was in Toronto for a few days January last. That was his last visit to this city.' p. 45

A reporter interviews Tumblety who is maudlin about the sad state of his health (yet he would live another fifteen years) and who shows off his letters from Napoleon III, John Bright and Lord Baconsfield.

Both the talisman-like letters from celebrities and handy diamonds are obscure details which surely would only be known only to a person who really was in the presence of Tumblety.

There is yet another newspaper report that Tumblety even returned to Canada in May of that year; from 'The Toronto Globe', Nov 23rd 1888 :

' ... his fellow-passengers became much interested in the doctor, who is a man of striking presence, pleasant manners and great conversational powers ... a chasing, reckless and adventurous man but not one who would be guilty of a crime.' (here it is claimed he has a letter from Lincoln)


Lastly there is the tantalizing primary source discovered by Evans and Rumbelow which shows that Sir Charles Warren, in his last days as Commissioner, awarded commendations to Inspectors Marshall, Littlechild, Swanson and Andrews.

'There is seemingly no prosecution in Dec 1888, or throughout early 1889, that refers to arrests made by [the foursome] Thus whatever case Warren was referring to remains an enigma ...' p. 48

[Mayerling]

Hi Jonathan,

By any chance have you ever come across the name of "Jerome Collins"?

I doubt you have, but in your response, you mentioned that the "New York Herald" (owned by James Gordon Bennett Jr. since 1872, when his father died) was loaded with Irish nationalists on it's staff - mostly due to Gordon Bennett's intentions on this matter.

Jerome Collins worked on the "Herald" as a reporter, and frequently wrote articles dealing with science in the 1870s. Collins was also one of the leading Irish Fenian leaders in New York City. In 1879, Gordon Bennett was involved in financing an Arctic expedition on a ship called the "Jeannette" under Lt. George Washington DeLong. It left San Francisco and proceeded up the west coast of North America, to the Bering Sea and further to reach the Northwest Passage's Pacific entrance. Collins was on board, serving as science and meteorologist officer on the ship (and presumably he was going to write the official account of the trek for the newspaper). But the expedition was a tragic failure, ending in shipwreck and the loss of most of the men - Collins among them.

Jeff

[Monty]

To claify

Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Warren resigned on 8th November 1888, the day before the body of Mary Kelly was found in Spitalfields, however he remained in post until the 30th November 1888.

Upon the murder of Kelly, Warren relayed instruction that all matters concerning the Whitechapel Murders rested, temporarily until Monro officially became Commissioner, with his Assistant Commissioner, Anderson.

His last act as Commissioner was to leave an entry in the Police Orders dated 1st December 1888.

Monro took over on that date.

Monty

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Hi Jeff.

“By any chance can you guess or do you have any idea what Andrews may have learned about Parnell for the Commission?... I take it that if Andrews was concentrating on this he picked up some suggestive information linking Parnell with American Fenian organizations (like "Clan Na Gael"). I am curious about how much Andrews had now before having to return to Halifax by that ship.”

It’s not known exactly what information Andrews may have picked up, if any. There was talk in the Canadian papers that Andrews mission, reportedly to find witnesses who would be willing to give testimony in London against Parnell, was a bust. Apparently it was…if this was indeed his mission.

The Toronto Daily Mail describes Andrews’ movements while he was in Southern Ontario. The paper notes that when Andrews arrived back in Toronto from his trip to Niagara, where it was reported in some newspapers that he crossed over the border to Buffalo, he returned with “a large bundle of papers and books.” Also, there were reports that Andrews travelled to Windsor where he crossed the border to Detroit. There, it was said, he met with a man who gave the name “Warden,” but who received mail under two or three other names, one of them being “Thompson.” This is interesting because at that time there was an ex-Scotland Yard CID Inspector named James Thomson who was working for the Times in North America attempting to gather evidence against Parnell. The Toronto Daily Mail suggested that Andrews was actually in Ontario to act as a courier who collected documents, found by others involved in secret work against Parnell and the Irish Nationalist cause, in order to deliver them safely back to London.

This makes some sense as Irish supporters of Parnell in North America had been able to regularly intercept telegram messages sent between detectives working for the Times and London; had actually stolen a British diplomatic bag and had intimidated, bribed, and, in one case, got a Canadian witness drunk so that he divulged what his testimony was going to be. All information was handed over to Parnell’s defence team in London.

“If [Andrews] might have gone at one point to Buffalo, and perhaps on to Detroit, well that is a large distance to cover in a day or so (like six hundred miles or so). Maybe two days to make such a trip one way in 1888.”

Andrews used Toronto as his home base and travelled from there around Southern Ontario. He arrived in Toronto on the afternoon of Tuesday, the 11th of December, and left it a week later on Tuesday, 18 December, 1888.

Wolf.

[Jonathan H]

Andrews was actually investigating Dr Tumblety

From 'Inspector Andrews Revisited Part III: International Man of Mystery' by R J Palmer, published in 'The Casebook Examiner' Issue Four, October 2010:

'If we are to accept the premise that Andrews went to America on behalf of "The Times", a necessary link in the chain of evidence is to show he had been authorized to do so by senior officers at Scotland Yard.'

'To state that this meant that Monro was "against the Irish movement" implies that he would have been equally willing to allow the illegal use of Scotland Yard detectives to conspire against the entirely legal Home Rule movement through collusion with "The Times". There is little evidence that this was Monro's attitude, and, indeed, we have his views on the matter.' p.13

Anderson claimed in a 1910 letter that his writing of the Parnell letters had Monro's approval. Tipped off by Macnaghten, the latter vehemently denied this in a letter to "The Times":

'"The alleged statement of Anderson to an interviewer that it was arranged between him and me that he should write ... is absolutely incorrect ... 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 ... whether the government was Liberal or Conservative ..."' p. 15

Sir Charles Warren was actually still, by a few weeks, the Commissioner when Andrews was sent on his North American trip, not quite yet Monro.

'[Sir Charles] Warren, the military man, had a strong aversion to 'secret work' and would have vigorously resisted any attempt by his subordinates to engage Scotland Yard in any politically motivated chicanery. The record is quite clear on this. Throughout the first half of 1888, Warren fought bitterly with Monro, believing he was spending too much time and anti-Fenian work. ... Given such attitudes it is clearly ridiculous to suggest that Warren, who had already announced his resignation in Nov 1888, would risk a political scandal, not to mention his own reputation, by authorizing a nefarious mission to ruin the Parnellites.' p. 16

' ... what isn't revealed [in mundane contemporaneous records] is why Andrews stayed in Toronto for a full eight days inclusive, and thus we are left entirely in the dark as to why he was in the city.' p. 17

'By December 19th, however, Andrews lingered in and around Toronto for another week, and "The Mail" now exuded a far more conspiratorial tone. Under the title "What They Are After" and subtitled "The Scotland Yard detective Works 'The Times' Case" and would be the earliest allegation that Andrews was actually in Canada to drum up witnesses for the Parnell commission ... "Now" [Andrews] said, "as I am leaving, I do not mind telling you that I have obtained some important clues in the Parnell case--things I never dreamed of before. But I can say no more, so don't press me." ... But Inspector Andrews is not the only officer of Scotland Yard in America present on a similar mission. Inspector Fred Jarvis, a bosom friend of his, and also Chief Inspector Shore, of the same department, are in the United States hunting evidence. It is said for over three years three of Pinkerton's most expert men have been at work on the Irish National Societies.'


There are more examples by Palmer of adverse local media reports exposing Andrews as a stooge for the anti-Parnell brigade.

What Palmer does is show us the primary sources, in detail, where Andrews is quoted as admitting that he is there to obtain evidence, documents and/or witnesses against Parnell as really a supporter of terrorism. That therefore "The Times" has not committed a libel against this Irish politician, who was supposedly campaigning for a peaceful transition to some kind of Irish independence.

You cannot help but begin to question the veracity of these 'scoops' for the following reasons:

1. Could Andrews, a highly regarded professional, really be that inept, incompetent and indiscreet as to give the whole game away about the Parnell imbroglio?

Isn't the cover story that he is there for the Ripper?

Why doesn't this blundering idiot then use it?

2. Supposedly confirming this version of events are two hopelessly biased sources: Patrick Boyle, a pro-Fenian and editor of 'The Irish-Canadian', and R.B. Teefy treasurer of the Toronto branch of the Irish National League. The latter made the incendiary claim that witnesses had been lining up for Andrews buy, so as to perjure themselves before the Parnell inquiry (although the bait has apparently not been taken).

3. A piece in 'The New York Herald' of Dec 23rd 8888 is suspiciously similar in wording to the one in 'The Mail', with just the city of Montreal subbing for Toronto (and the second version hedging its bets with the title: 'The Alleged Indiscretions of an English Detective'.) The night editor of the NY paper was none other than 'General' Frank Millen, who was a:

'... Fenian skirmisher, extraordinaire, member of the Can na Gael, sometimes profiteer in the pay of Robert Anderson (and later Edward Jenkinson)--the same Millen whom Assistant Met Police Commissioner James Monro would later name as the mastermind behind the Jubilee dynamite plot of 1887. In a strange but perhaps significant twist, it is also known that Millen himself was in negotiation with Joseph Soames of 'The Times' to give evidence before the Commission. As pointed out by journalist Christy Campbell, 'The New York Herald's' owner, James Gorden Bennett, 'delighted' in hiring such rabble rousing characters, filling 'The Herald's' office with more Irish rebels than a Clan-na-Gael picnic.' p. 23

4. On Jan 16th the same paper published an even more outlandish tale that Andrews, Jarvis and Shore had gone so far as to conspire with Irish nationalists to blow up a ship in New York Harbour.

That ruins the credibility of the other accounts, surely?

5. Robert Pinkerton publicly denied the story of his agency's connection to all these shenanigans, finishing with 'Inspector Andrews is unknown to us' p. 24

6. The similar article in 'The New York World' and 'The Boston Globe', Dec 22nd and Dec 23rd respectively, called 'Polluted Hands', claimed that Andrews had already done 'dirty work' against the League in England and Ireland which is highly unlikely (his known movements show him in London investigating criminal cases of theft) and the source for this is R.B. Teefy.

Mundane records show that the article is wrong about Andrews' movements:

'Thus, at the time Andrews was supposedly soliciting Irishmen in Montreal, he was actually three hundred miles away in Toronto ... This leaves the veracity of the article in grave doubt, but, nonetheless, it goes on to describe secret meetings with a 'resident detective' in Toronto named 'Sketchely', and the subsequent travels of Andrews around the Great Lakes region.' p. 26

Thus Palmer has established that the agenda, the details and the sources of these newspapers accounts are all questionable -- especially as it all hinges on Anderson sending an idiot with a big gob (also the physical description of Andrews in this article does not match the real detective, suggesting further falsity, or that they were trailing the wrong man?)

'In truth, those who have put faith in the veracity of these and similar accounts are seemingly unaware that 19th century news reports dealing with Irish nationalism were notoriously unreliable. Not only are there many examples of entirely bogus 'interviews' being published, but the nationalist press frequently printed out-and-out misinformation solely designed to embarrass the British government.' p. 28

Palmer provides examples to back up this statement (eg. 'interviews' with William Lomasney who had actually blown himself up, and Scotland Yard were in no doubt about his demise.)

7. The radical, pro-Irish Liberal, Henry Labouchere, asked in the Commons if Andrews had met with the agent Henri Le Caron (real name Thomas Miller Beach) and the Home Sec. the definitely inept Henry Matthews replied ambiguously.

This is used as evidence by detractors that therefore Andrews did meet Caron, even though it would mean that Matthews was also giving the game away to a hated Liberal opponent, and that Anderson had betrayed his agent, Miller, by revealing his true identity to a police detective.

But the biggest negative against this theory is that Caron was not in North America at the required date to meet Andrews; he was already in England attending to his dying father.

Palmer provides several primary sources to back this up (including the record of the father's death). He also shows that in the Commons, Matthews was much more definitive responding to Labouchere's further claim that Jarvis had been doing the same as Andrews. The answer was no.

Monro, furthermore, was moved to write to "The Times" on April 19th, 1890, agreeing with the Home Sec:

' ... Since I became Assistant Commissioner of Police in 1884 until now, neither Inspector Jarvis nor any other officer of the Metropolitan Police has been at any time within many hundred miles of either Kansas or Colorado, nor has any officer of the force been in America assisting 'The Times', directly or indirectly, in connection with their case before the Special Commission'.

Palmer shows from other primary sources that Irish agents had probably mistaken a Canadian private detective for Jarvis, so the Liberal politician was wrong on both counts.

Labouchere was humiliated, had to pay legal costs, and issue a public apology.

As Palmer argues, for those newspaper reports -- who were known to fabricate to advance their political agenda -- to be true we have to accept that Anderson, Monro, Pinkerton, Miller et al. lied (and lied for years and years) and that Andrews was so useless he forgot his Whitechapel cover story and admitted the truth, to the sworn enemies of the anti-Irish.

A police detective, moreover, who had nothing to do with Irish affairs but who was, according to Walter Dew, working the Ripper case [Timothy Riordan fails to mention this vital source].

Plus as Palmer argues 'where are his results' if Andrews was in Canada on an illegal Parnell fishing expedition?


Did Andrews meet with Canadian law enforcement, presumably about Tumblety if it was not about Parnell?

From the 'St Louis Republican', Montreal, Dec 22nd 1888:

'... It was announced at police headquarters today that Andrews has a commission in connection with other Scotland Yard men to find the murderer in america. His inaction for so long a time, and the fact that a man, suspected of knowing considerable about the murders left England for this side three weeks ago, makes the London police believe "Jack" has left the country for this." p. 42

Palmer argues that '... it is known that Andrews did meet with Montreal Police Chief George Hughes that afternoon ... In fact, it is uncertain how long Andrews stayed in Montreal: one account has him leaving on the 20th, another on the 22nd ... Andrews may well have stayed in Montreal for two days.' ps. 42-3

Thus plenty of time to confer.

Why Canada?

Why do a background on a prime Ripper suspect check there?

Anderson may have mistakenly believed Dr T was an Irish-Canadian.

It has been argued that this seems extremely flimsy because Tumblety had not been back to that country for thirty years.

Palmer counter-argues that this is not so, and provides primary sources to back it up.

George Harcourt wrote to 'The Mail' on Nov 22nd 1888 claiming that Tumblety had been there in Toronto, in 1883, because he had personally ordered a coat from his shop -- and was a hard customer to forget:

' ... He was in the store several times, and being of striking appearance, excited our curiosity. He was over six feet in height, stout and dark. He was possessed of plenty of money and showed us several very valuable diamond rings which he carried in his pocket. ... we have no doubt that this is the same Dr. Tumblety ...'

Both 'The Mail' and 'The Globe' claimed on Nov 23rd 1888 that Tumblety had been in Toronto in Jan 1888:

'Dr. Francis Tumblety who was arrested in London recently on suspicion of being implicated in the Whitechapel murders, was in Toronto for a few days January last. That was his last visit to this city.' p. 45

A reporter interviews Tumblety who is maudlin about the sad state of his health (yet he would live another fifteen years) and who shows off his letters from Napoleon III, John Bright and Lord Baconsfield.

Both the talisman-like letters from celebrities and handy diamonds are obscure details which surely would only be known only to a person who really was in the presence of Tumblety.

There is yet another newspaper report that Tumblety even returned to Canada in May of that year; from 'The Toronto Globe', Nov 23rd 1888 :

' ... his fellow-passengers became much interested in the doctor, who is a man of striking presence, pleasant manners and great conversational powers ... a chasing, reckless and adventurous man but not one who would be guilty of a crime.' (here it is claimed he has a letter from Lincoln)


Lastly there is the tantalizing primary source discovered by Evans and Rumbelow which shows that Sir Charles Warren, in his last days as Commissioner, awarded commendations to Inspectors Marshall, Littlechild, Swanson and Andrews.

'There is seemingly no prosecution in Dec 1888, or throughout early 1889, that refers to arrests made by [the foursome] Thus whatever case Warren was referring to remains an enigma ...' p. 48