The 'Suckered!' Trilogy

[mklhawley]

Hi Jeff,

With respect to Tumblety, I have done something similar, which will be in the June issue of Ripperologist. I will be presenting some new stuff. Hope you like it.

Sincerely,

Mike

[PaulB]

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

I agree. But then I would never aspire to such literary heights. But I'll be happy with my own modest literary achievements, which at least are mine. And it was Dickens' who used that word and with the same meaning: sham, inanity, blather, rot, and so on.

As for pointless arguments, it is important to know what the sources we use are and how they can be used. You are through ignorance misrepresenting the status of a group of source materials. That's not pointless. It comes pretty close, I admit, because you are a humbug to whom nobody should pay attention, not on sources or anything else.

[David Orsam]

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.

Hi Tom,

I have never actually argued that the police did not aid the Times at all. It is not something I have ever looked at or considered. I have only dealt with the issue of secret work in America in respect of the allegations against Andrews, Jarvis and Shore (who, as far as I am aware are, the only officers alleged to have been doing such work).

As for what "admissions" Labouchere was referring to, I don't know because he doesn't say. But there are two possibilities that I can think of. Firstly, he might have meant the admission that Anderson handed 'documents' to Le Caron. Secondly, I'm also aware that there was an issue, which is irrelevant to what happened in America, that Scotland Yard officers had spoken to some potential witnesses to the inquiry who were being held in prison (and some admissions to the Commission might have been made about this). Labouchere might have interpreted all this as meaning that it had been admitted that the police were assisting the Times and, that being so, his mind set might have been such that he was prepared to believe any allegations against the police.

Finally, yes you are correct that Labouchere was only admitting that the allegations he made that Jarvis went to Colorado (specifically Del Norte) in December 1888 to assist the Times in respect of obtaining Sheridan's evidence were untrue. That was what his allegations were all about and was the basis of Jarvis' libel action against him.

[David Orsam]

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"?

Hi Simon,

That's an easy one.

Well, I assume you are referring to the period between May 1890 (when Jarvis issued proceedings) and October 1890 (when those proceedings were settled). The answer requires a basic understanding of how legal proceedings work and I attempt to provide this below.

I don't think things have changed too much from the nineteenth century. So, having issued his writ, the first thing that would have happened is that Jarvis would have provided his Statement of Case (which might have been included within the writ) which would have set out in broad legal terms the libel claim against Labouchere. Labouchere would then have instructed lawyers to prepare a Defence. At this stage, a Defence might simply have been a series of non-admissions or denials. He might well have pleaded justification (i.e. that the allegations were true) but he would not have needed to provide proof at this stage. He would probably have been given a month to file his Defence. Then Jarvis' lawyers might have filed a Reply. Requests for further information (or Interrogatories) would have been possible. Once the pleadings were closed, the proceedings would have moved to what is now called Disclosure but used to be called Discovery whereby both sides exchange any relevant documents in their possession, custody or control. Then it moves on to witness statement evidence which is drafted and exchanged shortly before trial.

The likelihood is that it was only when he received a witness statement from Jarvis demonstrating exactly what the inspector had been doing in December 1888 that Labouchere felt that he could not continue to persist with the allegations against him. We have no idea at what exact point Labouchere lost confidence in his own information but that wouldn't really matter because his legal team would have advised him to wait for the evidence from the other side before offering to settle because one never knows what helpful things the other side's evidence might throw up. But it should also be noted that Labouchere's Counsel would not have been in a position to provide him with advice as to his prospects at trial until a late stage, after Discovery and after exchange of statements. It is important to bear in mind that Labouchere appears to have believed that he had a full legal defence in that his allegations were not libellous. If that were true, he could have won the case even if the allegations were completely false. He was not being sued for making false statements, just for libel and, if there was no libel, Jarvis would lose. At the same time, such a victory for Labouchere would have been pyrrhic one only, because his credibility and reputation would probably have been destroyed in a very public way, bearing in mind that the trial – and especially his cross-examination - would have been fully reported in the newspapers.

The short point is that most litigation is settled shortly before trial, after all parties involved, with the benefit of considered legal advice based on all the evidence in the case, are able to assess the likelihood of victory and defeat and their minds are fully focussed on what will happen in court. In particular, individual claimants and defendants are made aware by their legal teams of the questions they are going to be asked in the witness box and you would be amazed at how this changes people's attitude towards settlement when they have previously refused to make any concessions. An element of panic is also common at this stage because even a small risk of defeat means that defeat is possible and the consequences of defeat can be enormous. Yet, negotiations often don't start until shortly before trial because neither side wants to make an approach, thus showing signs of weakness. Equally, one knows the pressure will be mounting for the other side too, making it possible to win more concessions in a settlement. So there is much brinkmanship involved. It's all very delicate and done under legal advice. Settlements (literally) on the steps of the court happen all the time for these reasons.

So there is nothing odd at all about Labouchere's apparent late change of mind. Until the start of the legal proceedings, he would never have had cause to question his own assumptions about what had happened but things don't change immediately just because a claim has been issued. These things take time to work out. And, if you are wealthy and don't have to worry about your legal costs, you don't settle too early, you wait until the last possible moment. It's the same now as it was then.

I hope that explains it fully.

[David Orsam]

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.

That is really very kind of you to take the time to post those remarks Abby and appreciated.

[David Orsam]

. 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.

That's a good point Jeff. So many things happen on a single day, and more so, obviously, in a single month, that are totally unconnected, yet if one starts (wrongly) connecting them, one will quickly end up being sucked into drawing erroneous conclusions about history.

[Mayerling]

Hi Jeff,

With respect to Tumblety, I have done something similar, which will be in the June issue of Ripperologist. I will be presenting some new stuff. Hope you like it.

Sincerely,

Mike

Thanks for the tip Mike, I look forward to seeing the article.

Jeff

[Mayerling]

I wish to make a correction: It was Simon who brought up the delay in Labouchere's actions of five months - not Tom. Sorry about that.

Jeff

[Mayerling]

That's a good point Jeff. So many things happen on a single day, and more so, obviously, in a single month, that are totally unconnected, yet if one starts (wrongly) connecting them, one will quickly end up being sucked into drawing erroneous conclusions about history.

Exactly so David. I have often felt that one of the problems in solving any major murder mystery (but especially any that are really old) is that there is a lack of balance in our concentrating on events. When we are thinking of, say the night of the murders of Eddowes and Stride in September 1888, we center on the events for the clues. It never really occurs to us that thousands of actions were occurring all over London that night that happened to be normal, not deadly. One certainly has to study the actions of parties and the relevance of clues immediately connected to the crimes, but one has to retain a balanced view that things were not stopped all over the place due to the crimes. In late September 1888 there were rehearsals going on at the Savoy Theatre for the upcoming first night (about a week later) of Gilbert and Sullivan's "Yeoman of the Guard". It is not connected but it was contemporary to the tragedies.

My suggestion for an enlarged chronology would only be of events relating to the case and the various parties involved.

Jeff

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Tom,

I have never actually argued that the police did not aid the Times at all. It is not something I have ever looked at or considered. I have only dealt with the issue of secret work in America in respect of the allegations against Andrews, Jarvis and Shore (who, as far as I am aware are, the only officers alleged to have been doing such work).

As for what "admissions" Labouchere was referring to, I don't know because he doesn't say. But there are two possibilities that I can think of. Firstly, he might have meant the admission that Anderson handed 'documents' to Le Caron. Secondly, I'm also aware that there was an issue, which is irrelevant to what happened in America, that Scotland Yard officers had spoken to some potential witnesses to the inquiry who were being held in prison (and some admissions to the Commission might have been made about this). Labouchere might have interpreted all this as meaning that it had been admitted that the police were assisting the Times and, that being so, his mind set might have been such that he was prepared to believe any allegations against the police.

Finally, yes you are correct that Labouchere was only admitting that the allegations he made that Jarvis went to Colorado (specifically Del Norte) in December 1888 to assist the Times in respect of obtaining Sheridan's evidence were untrue. That was what his allegations were all about and was the basis of Jarvis' libel action against him.

But I would consider that extremely relevant. If Anderson, Monro, etc were indeed doing some sly stuff in support of the Times it provides a context in which the American papers and Labouchere made their accusations and lends some measure of credibility to Labouchere (although would still fall short of proof regarding Jarvis).

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Hi David.

I have now changed the sentence to read:
"Those who oppose the notion that Tumblety was even considered by Scotland Yard as being a Jack the Ripper suspect, such as Simon D. Wood, and others such as Wolf Vanderlinden, have claimed that the visit of Andrews to Canada was part of the illegal work on behalf of the Times being carried out by Scotland Yard detectives in North America".
I hope that is satisfactory to you but would be happy to amend further if you don't think that quite captures it.

It is not necessary to change what you have written on my account (though, having said that, it is appreciated. Thanks for that).

One thing that I have wondered about is your lack of any mention of Stewart Evans and Paul Gainey’s work on the Andrews’ journey. It was their book, The Lodger, the Arrest and Escape of Jack the Ripper, which started the ball rolling with their claim that the return of R.G.I Barnett to Canada by Andrews was a cover to hide a secret mission to trail and arrest Tumblety. It was even Stewart who suggested, here on the boards if memory serves, that the extradition process was manipulated in order to get Andrews to North America on a free ride from the Canadian authorities, the Whitechapel Murders Investigation being notoriously penny-pinched by the Home Office. The chronology on this subject starts with The Lodger and moves on from there. Arguably, I suppose, you could argue that it was Logan who started it all off, and you briefly mention him, yet, oddly, you make no mention of Evans and Gainey, the modern theorists on this subject, in your three articles. I was just curious why?

Wolf.

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Hi Mike.

I hope you don't mean me, Wolf. I know darn well you reject Simon's and Trevor's assertion that Tumblety wasn't even a minor suspect. I suspect you and David agree quite closely on this subject.

No, I don’t mean you now but you have made this statement in the past on more than one occasion.

Wolf.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi David.



It is not necessary to change what you have written on my account (though, having said that, it is appreciated. Thanks for that).

One thing that I have wondered about is your lack of any mention of Stewart Evans and Paul Gainey’s work on the Andrews’ journey. It was their book, The Lodger, the Arrest and Escape of Jack the Ripper, which started the ball rolling with their claim that the return of R.G.I Barnett to Canada by Andrews was a cover to hide a secret mission to trail and arrest Tumblety. It was even Stewart who suggested, here on the boards if memory serves, that the extradition process was manipulated in order to get Andrews to North America on a free ride from the Canadian authorities, the Whitechapel Murders Investigation being notoriously penny-pinched by the Home Office. The chronology on this subject starts with The Lodger and moves on from there. Arguably, I suppose, you could argue that it was Logan who started it all off, and you briefly mention him, yet, oddly, you make no mention of Evans and Gainey, the modern theorists on this subject, in your three articles. I was just curious why?

Wolf.

I had the same thoughts, which is what prompted my earlier observations that Tumblety, over time, has become a minor character in the sagas of Andrews & Co. I'm interested in David's answer as well.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Hi Jeff.

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. …
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?

When the action of issuing a warrant for Piggott’s arrest was discussed Parnell and Russell were adamant that it not be handled by Scotland Yard because they didn’t trust them to carry it out in a timely manner or, possibly, at all. It was finally decided that what we would now call an “all points bulletin” would be issued so that as many police, nation-wide, would be looking for Piggott rather than just Scotland Yard. Russell (and others) would later state that they believed that Piggott was bundled out of the country by members of Scotland Yard. Exactly why Russell would believe this to be true, even years later, is not clear.

Wolf.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

THE SPECIAL COMMISSION—THE CASE OF MR. PIGOTT.
House of Commons Debate 26 February 1889 vol 333 cc481-4

MR. FORREST FULTON (West Ham, N.) I desire to ask the Home Secretary whether he can now explain the delay which is alleged to have taken place on the part of the police in dealing with the warrant for the arrest of Mr. R. Pigott? I understand that the warrant was issued early in the day by the Special Commission.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,) Birmingham, E. Yes, Mr. Speaker; I am able to state that there was no delay whatever on the part of the police. Since I was questioned on the subject by the hon. and learned Member for Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy), I have received information that the Bench warrant issued this morning by the Commission Court was not brought to Scotland Yard till a quarter past 6 by a person in the employment of Messrs. Lewis and Lewis. It was not, therefore, until that hour that the police could possibly take any steps for the arrest of Mr. Pigott. Immediately the warrant was received, every step that was possible was taken by telegraphing to the ports and by employing persons to watch at all railway stations.

MR. T. M. HEALY (Longford, N.) As this question has been raised, evidently by arrangement, I beg leave to remind the House that my first question was whether any kind of surveillance had existed with regard to the Times witnesses, and undoubtedly it had; and my question to the Government was why, that being so, the police let Mr. Pigott slip out of their fingers? Now, an illusory question is put by the hon. and learned Member with regard to the execution of the warrant. That point was not raised at all by me. If the Government are now taking the point that the warrant was not brought to Scotland Yard till 6 o'clock, I respectfully submit to them, in the interests of justice, that as hundreds of officials were in the neighbourhood of the Court they must have known at 12 o'clock, or at 1 o'clock at the latest, that the warrant was issued, and it was their duty to see that the closure, with which we are familiar in this House, was put upon the ports of the kingdom. But that was not my complaint or allegation at all. My complaint is, that you had delegated two sergeants of the Royal Irish Constabulary to look after Pigott—Sergeants Fawcett and Gallagher—and that precious consignment having been committed to their keeping, and they having got him, why did they not keep him? Therefore, the point of my observation remains—namely, that the Irish Government, having paid two police sergeants to watch Mr. Pigott, when the critical hour of 6 o'clock (at which the Continental train leaves Charing Cross) arrived, those two sergeants found it convenient to shut their eyes to the absence of Mr. Pigott. A more convenient opportunity will be taken to find how it was that "our old friend Walter" had put at his disposal those two sergeants to guard his precious charge Pigott, and why, when it became suitable, "our old friend Walter" allowed Pigott to escape.

MR. MATTHEWS I must correct the hon. Gentleman a little. His questions, addressed to me this afternoon with less courtesy than is usual even with him, implied that I was acting in collusion with Mr. Richard Pigott, and had allowed him to escape. I replied that no knowledge or information of Mr. Pigott's escape had reached me. That has been explained by the fact that Scotland Yard, through which alone I could get information, and which has nothing to do with the Irish police, and which alone has authority to execute Bench warrants issued in England, did not obtain information from Messrs. Lewis and Lewis, who had charge of this Bench warrant, until 6 o'clock in the evening. It is, therefore, not surprising that I should have had no information, and I should have expected from the hon. Member some sort of apology for the insinuations he addressed to me about 4 o'clock this afternoon.

Regards,

Simon