The 'Suckered!' Trilogy

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi David. Yes, but you argue that the police did not do any secret work in America, and more specifically that they never aided the Times. So what's behind this statement: 'That the police did aid The Times in getting up its case is proved by admissions made before the Commission.'

It seems that what Labouchere is disclaiming is the information he received that Jarvis went to Colorado.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

Why might it have taken Labouchere five months to arrive at the conclusion "that it was probable my American friends had been misled [about Jarvis], and that it was a case of mistaken identity"?

Regards,

Simon

[Trevor Marriott]

You aren't going to make much headway persuading people that you are right and David's wrong if you keep claiming that newspapers are secondery sources. You don't even know what primary and secondary sources are. I really don't understand why sensible people bother to argue with you anymore.

Perhaps it could be that those sensible people you refer to, have over the years, not only read these secondary newspaper articles, but actually have believed there content. More so if the article or articles support their particular theory.

And I do know the difference perhaps if you take off your scholastic hat you might also understand.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[mklhawley]

Perhaps it could be that those sensible people you refer to, have over the years, not only read these secondary newspaper articles, but actually have believed there content. More so if the article or articles support their particular theory.

And I do know the difference perhaps if you take off your scholastic hat you might also understand.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

So, when a story in an article is corroborated by Littlechild, Anderson, Andrews, competing papers, the British press, and the Associated Press you should take it seriously; right Trevor. Of course, when it's not corroborated, like Sir George Arthur, you should not. I agree!

Mike

[Trevor Marriott]

So, when a story in an article is corroborated by Littlechild, Anderson, Andrews, competing papers, the British press, and the Associated Press you should take it seriously; right Trevor. Of course, when it's not corroborated, like Sir George Arthur, you should not. I agree!

Mike

You need to learn the difference between corroboration and hearsay and stop relying on newspaper articles. It is a known and proven fact that even when a newspaper man is on the scene of something he still may manage to get the facts wrong

So how can you or anyone else for that matter firstly, and accurately rely on newspaper articles that are weeks out of date from the matter reported, and newspapers which are published hundreds and sometime thousands of miles from where something happened, thus making them secondary. With no local papers publishing the same stories, you are really unbelievable in your approach to all of this.

There is not one scrap of evidence which points to Tumblety being a suspect.

Littlechild only states he was a likely suspect. He mentions nothing of an arrest nor any suspicion on him at the time of the murders. Accept it now an move on. Besides you know that he was in jail after Nov 7th.

Better put another seat in your sinking ship for David Orsam

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[DJA]

Haven't read the thread.

Did someone purchase another two of Trevor's novels after reading a first?

[PaulB]

You need to learn the difference between corroboration and hearsay and stop relying on newspaper articles. It is a known and proven fact that even when a newspaper man is on the scene of something he still may manage to get the facts wrong

So how can you or anyone else for that matter firstly, and accurately rely on newspaper articles that are weeks out of date from the matter reported, and newspapers which are published hundreds and sometime thousands of miles from where something happened, thus making them secondary. With no local papers publishing the same stories, you are really unbelievable in your approach to all of this.

There is not one scrap of evidence which points to Tumblety being a suspect.

Littlechild only states he was a likely suspect. He mentions nothing of an arrest nor any suspicion on him at the time of the murders. Accept it now an move on. Besides you know that he was in jail after Nov 7th.

Better put another seat in your sinking ship for David Orsam

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Unfortunately you display your ignorance of what primary and secondary sources are right here. It has nothing whatsoever to do with factual accuracy or innacuracy. This has been explained to you several times and by people other than me.

On reflection, not too many people do bother arguing with you do they

[Trevor Marriott]

Unfortunately you display your ignorance of what primary and secondary sources are right here. It has nothing whatsoever to do with factual accuracy or innacuracy. This has been explained to you several times and by people other than me.

On reflection, not too many people do bother arguing with you do they

Take off the blinkers

It seems the only ones continuing to argue are you, and a small minority on here who cant and wont accept the introduction of new facts which go against their theories.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[mklhawley]

Littlechild only states he was a likely suspect. He mentions nothing of an arrest nor any suspicion on him at the time of the murders. Accept it now an move on. Besides you know that he was in jail after Nov 7th.



www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor! You screw up again. Littlechild stated Tumblety was 'amongst the suspects'. That's different than a likely suspect. HE WAS A SUSPECT. Amongst the suspects means he was a suspect amongst others. Why would Sims aske Littlechild about the ripper case if Littlechild was not in the know? Sims knew Littlechild was there. Hmmm. I don't see a newspaper source in this whatsoever. Oh yes, this corroborates, E. Tracy Greaves' discovery that Tumblety was arrested on suspicion ...for the Ripper murders.

Littlechild certainly did mention suspicion on him for the murders, because he was AMONGST THE SUSPECTS! That's what suspect means.

Sorry Trevor. Wrong again.

[PaulB]

Take off the blinkers

It seems the only ones continuing to argue are you, and a small minority on here who cant and wont accept the introduction of new facts which go against their theories.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You don't know what primary and seconday sources are.

So you give up trying to be clever about that and grab instead one of your favourite little nonsense phrases, 'take off the blinkers', and have a stab at doing something with that.

Actually, I think people don't argue with you anymore because they can see you're a humbug and simply can't be arsed to waste their time. I don't blame them.

Still. You don't know what primary and secondary sources are. At least that's established.

[Trevor Marriott]

You don't know what primary and seconday sources are.

So you give up trying to be clever about that and grab instead one of your favourite little nonsense phrases, 'take off the blinkers', and have a stab at doing something with that.

Actually, I think people don't argue with you anymore because they can see you're a humbug and simply can't be arsed to waste their time. I don't blame them.

Still. You don't know what primary and secondary sources are. At least that's established.

Well I have been called many things before but a humbug that's a new one I believe it was the famous writer Charles Dickens who used that term, perhaps one day you will aspire to those great heights as a writer, but then again perhaps we have more chance of seeing Lord Lucan riding Shergar down Oxford Street.

I shall now desist in these pointless arguments with you before we both get a ban from here.

https://www.trevormarriott

[Abby Normal]

Well I have been called many things before but a humbug that's a new one I believe it was the famous writer Charles Dickens who used that term, perhaps one day you will aspire to those great heights as a writer, but then again perhaps we have more chance of seeing Lord Lucan riding Shergar down Oxford Street.

I shall now desist in these pointless arguments with you before we both get a ban from here.

www.trevormarriott

its an unholy miracle you haven't been banned already

[Abby Normal]

I have been researching the question of what inspectors Andrews and Jarvis were doing in North America in 1888, as well as Superintendent Shore, and I have set out my findings in a trilogy entitled 'Suckered!' the first part of which, for anyone interested, can be accessed via the below link:

http://www.orsam.co.uk/thesuckeredtrilogy.htm

Parts 2 and 3 will follow on very shortly. I will post when they are available.

I hope you enjoy this trilogy.

Hi David
Im simply blown away by the skill, research and ability that went into these articles.

Congrats David. Your a much needed breath of fresh air to ripperology.

[Trevor Marriott]

its an unholy miracle you haven't been banned already

Why should I what have I done wrong?

[Mayerling]

A Questions of Chronology and of Suspicions

One of the things I liked about David's trilogy was he did strive to create a chronology of reporting events and events several times in the course of the sections.

I have frequently found that it sometimes pays handsome dividends if a careful chronology of different (and possibly competitive) strands of information are put together to make a whole picture. This was brought to my attention reading David's article when I noticed that many of the events in North America occurred in late November and early December 1888, and I was mentally (for no real reason) thinking of what Druitt was up to. There was certainly no connection between Montie's final weeks and the detecives and their jobs in North America, but it does add a type of perspective to sometimes think along similar lines.

Another thing that I was thinking of (when Labouchere and the Home Rule issue, and the Parnell Commission) was brought into the mix was the events dealing with the resolution of that mess in 1888-1889, really culminating in the unmasking of Richard Pigott by Sir Charles Russell's famous cross-examination at the Commission. After the second day of Pigott's destruction on the stand, he made a confession and fled London. About a month later he was tracked down to a hotel in Madrid, and when about to be arrested committed suicide.

It was here that the suspicion issue came up. The Home Rulers were certain that there was a spirit of collusion between Scotland Yard and the Conservatives and the Times in proving Parnell had written the letters. This is where Labouchere would be coming from. How true this is I have to leave up in the air. I personally believe it possible - and even suspect one of the government leaders had a hand in directing it - but there is a far distance between a personal belief and proof. Still that such suspicions existed cannot be dismissed cavalierly. The fact that suspicions may be floating about may definitely influence actions (such as Labouchere's here).

The escape and death of Piggott is an example. On the second day of his cross-examination of Piggott, Russell could have insisted Piggott be kept under police surveillance. Instead it was not until he failed to show up on the third day that he insisted on a warrant for his arrest be sent out. That Piggott got away so easily may be ascribed to a lack of directive to the police, police indifference, or (again under that cloud of suspicion) orders to the police not to stop the man if he took flight. Later, when he shot himself, there were thoughts about the carelessness of the police in letting him do so. Was it just carelessness or were they hoping that he would so as not to be brought back to London for further questioning by Russell?

Then comes the question raised by Tom on this thread, why did it take five months for Labouchere to settle? Again was it the swift and tragic events regarding Pigott that Labouchere was thinking about - and the renewed clouds of suspicion regarding the police actions?

If I may make a suggestion, why not construct a chronology of the actions of the detectives in North America (as David has reconstructed them), and the following:

The Parnell Commission activities from November 1888 to June 1889
The events concerning Dr. Tumblety's November 1888 arrest, his bail, and then his leaving England reaching France and then the U.S.

These three sets of strands seem to be interconnected and should be in a kind of set chronology (if possible) that can be easily followed to tell what may be influencing news coverage and public statements more clearly.

Jeff