The 'Suckered!' Trilogy

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi David. Semantics are what one resorts to when they're on the losing end of an argument. Your last couple of posts to me have been quite semantical in nature.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[David Orsam]

We each have to decide for ourselves which is more likely.

Right, so when are you going to do it?

Yes, the most significant part, where you say you have proved that these detectives did no extra work while in America. That just doesn't jive in all the cases with how long they spent there and what was reported in the American press at the time. Even if 95% of the press reports were wrong, that 5% means you're wrong as well.

Leaving aside your curiously meaningless mathematics, Inspector Andrews spent a mere week in Toronto, until Barnett was committed for trial, and I have fully explained, step by step, why Inspector Jarvis needed to spend four months or so in America, first to locate the elusive Thomas Barton and then to attend the extradition proceedings and bring him back to England. While Superintendent Shore was never even there in the first place! What more could you possibly want from me?

p.s. any chance of some answers to my questions?

[David Orsam]

Hi David. Semantics are what one resorts to when they're on the losing end of an argument. Your last couple of posts to me have been quite semantical in nature.

Very amusing Tom for someone who first picked up on, and misunderstood, my use of Simon Wood's phrase 'elaborate balderdash' and then purported to translate one of my posts into a meaning it did not bear. The introduction of semantics into the discussion was all by you!

[David Orsam]

Tom, I think the floor is open to challenge what David has written.
There doesn't appear to be a queue.

Bumping this for you Tom.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi David, I saw Wickerman's post but wasn't sure what he meant. There doesn't seem to be a queue of any sort - praise or criticism - relating to the trilogy. But if one or two more people offer praise it will become about an equal balance.

I'd be curious to know what Abby and Wick's opinions are on Simon's book and Wolf's articles. If your work is a 'breath of fresh air' on the subject of Parnell and the North American trips, then I'm assuming they didn't care for the earlier works. Either that or they haven't read them, in which case...

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Casebook can be a pretty rough place and I have see all these guys be brutally condescending, rude and dismissive to other posters who they deem not worthy of their ken. Except, Phil Carter, of course, who, shall we say, has a more "subtle" approach.

Except Phil Carter! And who (besides Trevor and Robert Linford) on this thread is 'brutally condescending, rude, and dismissive' of 'noobs', or whoever it is that's suppose to not be worthy?

I guess they can dish it out, but cant take it.

Just so we're clear, David's the one doing the dishing. I don't recall Wolf's articles or Simon's book casting any aspersions on David.

It will be interesting to see if any of them steps up to the plate and really wants to go toe to toe with you on the substance of your article-we might learn something new!!

Simon and Wolf have done so. In my own minor way I believe I have as well by pointing out that his claims of 'proof' haven't materialized. If there's confusion on what constitutes 'proof' I'd be happy to expound.

Anyway-keep up the good work and I look forward to more of your work in the future. like I said before-your a breath of fresh air to this field and this noob has learned a lot from you already.

You're not alone. Works like David's (both here and on Nichols) are in large quite healthy and welcome. My only real complaint were his personal attacks (which you oddly commend right before admonishing the rest of us for the same) on Simon and Wolf and (to a lesser extent) RJ Palmer, and the overstating of his case. This approach is never recommended and serves no purpose other than perhaps as a catharsis for David, but he could come on here and call everyone hacks and then write a more even-tempered article. That's assuming he plans to publish. Blog posts, perhaps, are not subject to such manners. But this reads more like a series or articles than blog posts so that's how I see it.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[David Orsam]

Just so we're clear, David's the one doing the dishing. I don't recall Wolf's articles or Simon's book casting any aspersions on David.

Excellent point Tom. There is one possible explanation though: absence of a time machine.

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

Thus far you have offered no evidence that Scotland Yard officers were not working on behalf of The Times in America. All you have managed to cobble together [and I, too, have all the documentation from HO144/478/X27302] is a litany of denial—Jarvis, Anderson, Monro and Matthews all singing the same lyrics, with the cautionary counterpoint of Godfrey Lushington in the background. Now there was a civil servant with his head screwed on, no illusions about police tactics but eager to avoid trouble.

What astounds me about your take on this whole shenanigans is that you express no surprise that nobody at the time asked the most fundamental question of all, namely: if Inspector Jarvis was not in Kansas City or Del Norte on the dates in question [around Christmas 1888], where was he? Did he, perchance, on those dates send cables to Scotland Yard from, say, Winnipeg?

It should have been an easy matter to settle, but the best we get by way of an answer is from Robert Anderson who said that Jarvis departed for Canada on 7th December, stopping off en route for a day in Chicago. "He was at no time west of Chicago & has never been in Kansas City in his life."

Where is the evidence in support of Inspector Jarvis being elsewhere at these times?

What also astounds me is that you didn't bat an eyelid at Henry Matthews' refusal to sanction the payment of Jarvis's libel action, which he described as "likely to result in failure."

Scotland Yard and the Home Office were trembling at the prospect of what a court action might uncover.

I actually took the time and trouble to provide documentary evidence that the core story behind Stephen Knight's book was 'elaborate balderdash'. I suggest you try doing the same in addressing the matter of Scotland Yard operating illegally in America instead of simply insisting that you're right.

Regards,

Simon

[Wickerman]

I wasn't referring to hecklers.

David has challenged the arguments of others in his trilogy.
There doesn't appear to be a queue lining up to challenge the evidence provided by David.

[David Orsam]

Thus far you have offered no evidence that Scotland Yard officers were not working on behalf of The Times in America. All you have managed to cobble together [and I, too, have all the documentation from HO144/478/X27302] is a litany of denial—Jarvis, Anderson, Monro and Matthews all singing the same lyrics, with the cautionary counterpoint of Godfrey Lushington in the background. Now there was a civil servant with his head screwed on, no illusions about police tactics but eager to avoid trouble.

There you go again - "litany of denial", "heavy fog of denial"; what were they supposed to do? They properly denied allegations for which no evidence was ever presented. Their clear denials are themselves evidence of the falsity of the allegations.

What astounds me about your take on this whole shenanigans is that you express no surprise that nobody at the time asked the most fundamental question of all, namely: if Inspector Jarvis was not in Kansas City or Del Norte on the dates in question [around Christmas 1888], where was he?

Those questions - which were irrelevant to most people once the Home Secretary confirmed that Jarvis had not been in Kansas City or Del Norte - could have been asked by Labouchere, Healy or any number of M.P.s in the House of Commons but they never did. They would have been asked in the libel action but Labouchere waved the white flag before it got that far. And as Labouchere eventually accepted, Jarvis had never been within hundreds of miles of Kansas City or Del Norte.

Did he, perchance, on those dates send cables to Scotland Yard from, say, Winnipeg?

He is unlikely to have sent cables to London on 20 or 25 December unless he had something urgent to say but if he did we don't know about it. I have no idea why you are even asking the question.

It should have been an easy matter to settle

An easy matter for Jarvis to prove where he was on the precise dates of 20 or 25 December? Can you just remind me how it would have been so easy because I must have missed your previous explanation.

but the best we get by way of an answer is from Robert Anderson who said that Jarvis departed for Canada on 7th December, stopping off en route for a day in Chicago. "He was at no time west of Chicago & has never been in Kansas City in his life."

So the answer is that Jarvis was in Canada. But that is not even the best we get for an answer. The best we get for an answer is Labouchere telling us that he got it all completely wrong.

Where is the evidence in support of Inspector Jarvis being elsewhere at these times?

The evidence in the libel action of Jarvis v Labouchere is lost but we know the outcome don't we? Labouchere, who would have been aware of the evidence, retracted the allegations. What possible basis can there be for you to continue to promote the idea that Jarvis was in Kansas City or Del Norte on 20 or 25 December 1888? Surely you must need some basis!

What also astounds me is that you didn't bat an eyelid at Henry Matthews' refusal to sanction the payment of Jarvis's libel action, which he described as "likely to result in failure."

That, Simon, is because I read the basis on which that was said, as can be found in HO144/478/X27302, namely that it was believed by the Home Secretary that the allegations (albeit false) were not a libel on Inspector Jarvis (rather a libel on the Home Secretary himself and Attorney General). In other words, Matthews was basing his refusal to pay Jarvis' costs on a technical legal point which the lawyers for the police strongly disputed.

Scotland Yard and the Home Office were trembling at the prospect of what a court action might uncover.

Do you actually have any evidence for this? Monro was trembling so much that he literally wanted to order Jarvis to institute proceedings. And, as you must be aware, the Home Office eventually gave permission to Jarvis to commence proceedings.

I actually took the time and trouble to provide documentary evidence that the core story behind Stephen Knight's book was 'elaborate balderdash'. I suggest you try doing the same in addressing the matter of Scotland Yard operating illegally in America instead of simply insisting that you're right.

I have provided documentary evidence Simon. Where is yours?

[Tom_Wescott]

We each have to decide for ourselves which is more likely.

Right, so when are you going to do it?

Must I feel pressured to make up my mind on something? I've been studying the Ripper case for what feels like ever now and still haven't made up my mind on who the Ripper was yet. I would need more information to decide for myself what's most likely in the Parnell matter here. I will say that on a strictly literal basis, you have the stronger case. That's obvious. But when reading between the lines with an open mind, it's hard to ignore the possibility that the police were investigating the Parnell matter and didn't want it to get out. It's also possible that the American press reports and Labouchere's complaints were part of a fabricated smear campaign. It's a toss except for those who already made up their own mind based on their personal biases, whatever those may be.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[David Orsam]

Okay Tom, you can't make up your mind but surely one thing you can do is answer the two questions I asked you.

I'll repeat them:

In what way was Labouchere's admission "forced"? Who forced him to make it?

"forced" was your word Tom. You must have had something in mind when you wrote that.

But if you can't answer those two questions then are you prepared to do the decent thing that one would expect in a rational, civilised, debate and withdraw your claim that Labouchere was forced into an admission that his allegations were false?

[Tom_Wescott]

Okay Tom, you can't make up your mind but surely one thing you can do is answer the two questions I asked you.

I'll repeat them:

In what way was Labouchere's admission "forced"? Who forced him to make it?

"forced" was your word Tom. You must have had something in mind when you wrote that.

But if you can't answer those two questions then are you prepared to do the decent thing that one would expect in a rational, civilised, debate and withdraw your claim that Labouchere was forced into an admission that his allegations were false?

How could I know how he was forced? Blackmailed, perhaps? The reason why is obvious. But as you've noted, Labouchere wasn't the type of person to just fold and apologize on his own steam, even if he knew he was wrong.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Simon Wood]

Hi Tom,

I'm surprised Awesome hasn't demanded you fall on your sword.

But back to the plot.

Coerced is a more apt word regarding Labouchere's volte-face.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

How could I know how he was forced?

If you don't know then why did you state as a fact that he made a forced admission? Your own words were:

"Even if you're correct about Jarvis (and a forced admission is hardly proof of that)..."

Now you tell me you have no idea how he was forced and can only speculate wildly, so why did you say he was forced?

But as you've noted,

I don't think so.

Labouchere wasn't the type of person to just fold and apologize on his own steam, even if he knew he was wrong.

Are you aware that you keep missing the point? He either folded or he defended his allegations in a court of law. Those were the only two options open to him and he could not defend his allegations in a court of law because they were false, as he accepted. What is it about this simple point are you having difficulty with?