The 'Suckered!' Trilogy

[David Orsam]

I don't believe Labouchere's allegations. But they're not ridiculous. You seem to accept that Labouchere was being honest: that he was given information and convinced of its legitimacy, only to find out later that his sources were mistaken on one point - Jarvis' trip to Colorado. However, if you believe in Labouchere's veracity, then what do you make of his allegations against those other than Jarvis? The way I see it, there are three possibilities -

1) Labouchere was mistaken about Jarvis, but correct on other counts.

2) Labouchere was correct about ALL of it.

3) Labouchere was a big fat liar and none of it is true.

If either 1 or 2 are correct, then the police are in hot water. If #3 is correct, then it's all mox nix.

My point is that I would like to know if ANY of Lab's allegations are correct. not just this Jarvis business that you keep mentioning. It's the big picture of the police and their private agendas that intrigues me.

I don't understand a word of that post Tom. I already said to you in #185:

"The Labouchere allegations were the Jarvis allegations. They were the same thing."

Are you even reading my responses to you?

If you think Labouchere made other allegations please specify what they were and then, if he did make any, please explain how his "honesty" can have any bearing on whether those allegations were true or false. If he did make any other allegations then he could just have been mistaken about all of them couldn't he?

[David Orsam]

Have you read The Bank Holiday Murders?

I'm struggling to see the relevance of that question to my Suckered Trilogy, or to anything at all, and I don't want to continue an off-topic line of discussion in this thread Tom.

[Tom_Wescott]

It's a poor question Tom because Labuchere had no first hand information to impart. Everything he alleged about Jarvis he was told by others. I've already said he was suckered. This is what he accepted himself. However, the question can be turned round to ask: why are you awfully keen to believe Labouchere's ridiculous allegations about Jarvis but think he is a shameless liar when it comes to his written retraction?

I don't believe Labouchere's allegations. But they're not ridiculous. You seem to accept that Labouchere was being honest: that he was given information and convinced of its legitimacy, only to find out later that his sources were mistaken on one point - Jarvis' trip to Colorado. However, if you believe in Labouchere's veracity, then what do you make of his allegations against those other than Jarvis? The way I see it, there are three possibilities -

1) Labouchere was mistaken about Jarvis, but correct on other counts.

2) Labouchere was correct about ALL of it.

3) Labouchere was a big fat liar and none of it is true.

If either 1 or 2 are correct, then the police are in hot water. If #3 is correct, then it's all mox nix.

My point is that I would like to know if ANY of Lab's allegations are correct. not just this Jarvis business that you keep mentioning. It's the big picture of the police and their private agendas that intrigues me.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Tom - do you genuinely believe it is good scholarship to turn "doesn't seem illogical" into it probably or even possibly happened, in the absence of any evidence to support it?

Have you read The Bank Holiday Murders?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[David Orsam]

David,

In his book, Simon says he doesn't believe Tumblety killed anybody. What's your thought on that same question?

How irrelevant and off-topic is this? It's doesn't arise from my trilogy and I have no idea if Tumblety killed anybody.

[David Orsam]

You're awfully keen to accept Labouchere at his word when it comes to his Jarvis retraction, but not so keen to accept him at his word on anything else. Why is that?

It's a poor question Tom because Labuchere had no first hand information to impart. Everything he alleged about Jarvis he was told by others. I've already said he was suckered. This is what he accepted himself. However, the question can be turned round to ask: why are you awfully keen to believe Labouchere's ridiculous allegations about Jarvis but think he is a shameless liar when it comes to his written retraction?

I'll make you a deal. I'll accept his retraction on Jarvis if you accept his statement that it's a fact that London detectives were covertly investigating the Parnell matter. Fair?

As I'm sure you are not the kind of man who would ever accept things you don't believe, I will take that as an acceptance of Jarvis' retraction.

David, before I got out of high school I learned you can't trust politicians or officials at their word. 80% of what they say or do is face-saving and pandering.

Where do I find the source of that statistic of 80% Tom. Did your teacher tell you that or did you simply pluck it from the air? I am glad you have told me this though because it explains why you are irrationally refusing to accept unchallenged statements made by the Home Secretary in the House of Commons.

We also know there's a lot of coercion going on. Giving the circumstances at the time, the weight of the accusations, Monro's bailing, etc. it doesn't seem illogical that Labouchere was onto something and was compelled somehow to give in and make a public apology and claim mistaken identity on the part of his sources, who the day before were adamant, positive, and ready to give evidence. That's not a 'conspiracy theory' it's merely a possibility.

Tom - do you genuinely believe it is good scholarship to turn "doesn't seem illogical" into it probably or even possibly happened, in the absence of any evidence to support it?

You don't need to answer that actually because it is illogical for you to think that there is even the slightest chance that any of Labouchere's allegations could possibly be true in the face of the clearest possible retraction by him (as well as the absence of any evidence whatsoever to support them).

[Tom_Wescott]

David,

In his book, Simon says he doesn't believe Tumblety killed anybody. What's your thought on that same question?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[David Orsam]

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

Here's the funny thing Simon: earlier in this thread (#145 to be exact) you actually used the word "advised", when you wondered aloud (because of course you would never make any positive statements) if Labouchere's allegations "were true but that he was advised not to press the matter because of far greater political considerations." And these political considerations apparently had something to do with Parnell's divorce but I never understood what you were talking about so it's good to know that you have settled on "coerced" (although in your Rip article you used "manoeuvred").

And now I ask virtually the same question of you as I asked of Tom:

How was Labouchere coerced into a volte-face? And who coerced him?

[Tom_Wescott]

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?

You're awfully keen to accept Labouchere at his word when it comes to his Jarvis retraction, but not so keen to accept him at his word on anything else. Why is that?

I'll make you a deal. I'll accept his retraction on Jarvis if you accept his statement that it's a fact that London detectives were covertly investigating the Parnell matter. Fair?

David, before I got out of high school I learned you can't trust politicians or officials at their word. 80% of what they say or do is face-saving and pandering. We also know there's a lot of coercion going on. Giving the circumstances at the time, the weight of the accusations, Monro's bailing, etc. it doesn't seem illogical that Labouchere was onto something and was compelled somehow to give in and make a public apology and claim mistaken identity on the part of his sources, who the day before were adamant, positive, and ready to give evidence. That's not a 'conspiracy theory' it's merely a possibility.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[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?

[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

[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

[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]

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]

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?