The 'Suckered!' Trilogy

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Hunter, - I assume by "this field" you mean ripperology but Simon Wood and Wolf Vanderlinden have gone far wider than simply discussing JTR and have moved into an area of history that is not traditionally associated with the Ripper murders.

Simon moved from the UK to America and started inquiring into Parnell. Coincidence?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[David Orsam]

Simon moved from the UK to America and started inquiring into Parnell. Coincidence?

I don't understand.

[Mayerling]

Hi Jeff,

It's 2015. You go to B&N for bestsellers, DVDs vinyl records, and non-digital toys for children. For everything else (including niche books), you go to Amazon.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

You are technically (and technology) right Tom, but I am an old fashioned gentleman, and I like holding a book I am reading.

Jeff

[Mayerling]

In fact, by way of correction, exchange of witness statements prior to trial was only introduced in the twentieth century and would not have applied to an action in 1888. During the nineteenth century, there appears to have been much more importance placed in interrogatories as the means by which parties stated their case, probably by way of affidavit. So I think the basic point remains the same: Labouchere would have been provided with Jarvis' answers to his questions at some point during the proceedings and realised he was mistaken.

Dave, I have several questions that maybe you can answer. Possibly not due to difficulties in finding the items now (over 120 years later).

1) In mentioning interrogatories, would copies of these be kept by Labouchere's solicitors for preparing his defense?

2) What was the firm of solicitors that handled Labouchere - I don't think it was Lewis & Lewis?

3) Are Labouchere's solicitors still in existence (or some successor firm that merged with them?

4) If the answer (to either suggestion of my 3rd question) is "yes", did you try to see what their records were (provided, of course, if such records a) did exist, and b) are open at this late date without violating (although Labouchere is dead over 100 years) attorney - client privaledge?

Jeff

[Tom_Wescott]

You are technically (and technology) right Tom, but I am an old fashioned gentleman, and I like holding a book I am reading.

Jeff

You misunderstand, Jeff. Most books are published in hard copy as well. But you have to purchase them online and have them shipped to you. You won't find them sitting on B&N's shelves any more. At my local B&N the only Ripper books they've stocked in recent years were Richard Jones and (eek!) The Fifth Victim. Even Russell Edwards didn't make the shelves. Back in the 90s when I first got into Ripperology, Borders were the place to go. They stocked all the major, independent, and self-published Ripper titles.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Mayerling]

You misunderstand, Jeff. Most books are published in hard copy as well. But you have to purchase them online and have them shipped to you. You won't find them sitting on B&N's shelves any more. At my local B&N the only Ripper books they've stocked in recent years were Richard Jones and (eek!) The Fifth Victim. Even Russell Edwards didn't make the shelves. Back in the 90s when I first got into Ripperology, Borders were the place to go. They stocked all the major, independent, and self-published Ripper titles.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hi Tom,

It was you mentioning "Niche Books" that I got confused. When I was at Barnes & Noble I noticed one of those new technical marvels - that electronic gizmo that you can put books on and read - it was only $145.00. I decided it just is not for me. Hell, if it wasn't for the last thirty years of computer use, the present item I am sending this comment on would not be for me either. That's what happens when you were born at the dawning of a whole new technology that won't go away.

I miss Boarders. I believe it is totally out of business now. There was a very nice one five blocks from my old office in Manhattan. It was in the main building of the World Trade Center building, and I would visit it once or twice a month. It closed in 2000.

Jeff

[David Orsam]

Dave, I have several questions that maybe you can answer. Possibly not due to difficulties in finding the items now (over 120 years later).

1) In mentioning interrogatories, would copies of these be kept by Labouchere's solicitors for preparing his defense?

2) What was the firm of solicitors that handled Labouchere - I don't think it was Lewis & Lewis?

3) Are Labouchere's solicitors still in existence (or some successor firm that merged with them?

4) If the answer (to either suggestion of my 3rd question) is "yes", did you try to see what their records were (provided, of course, if such records a) did exist, and b) are open at this late date without violating (although Labouchere is dead over 100 years) attorney - client privaledge?

Hi Jeff,

According to Robert Anderson's 1906 account of the Jarvis v Labouchere libel action, he (Anderson) was informed by Jarvis' lawyers that Messrs Lewis & Lewis wanted to compromise the action so they must have been Labouchere's solicitors. They would, therefore, have maintained a file containing all the legal documents in the action.

Lewis & Lewis of 10-12 Ely Place, Holborn, became Lewis and Lewis and Gisborne & Co in about the 1940s and remained in existence up to 1963 but the firm was then evidently wound up as 10-12 Ely Place was sold for £211,000 with vacant possession in April 1964 by the trustees of the late Sir George Lewis.

Due to storage issues, I would expect legal files from 1888 to have been destroyed by 1963 so I would conclude that is very little chance of any relevant papers from that firm being in existence today.

[David Orsam]

One other question that has occurred to me is whether it is correct to say that, if the allegations against Andrews, Jarvis and Shore are true, and they really were doing investigative work about Parnell for the Times in America – under the instructions of Robert Anderson - this would have been an "illegal" act.

When researching my trilogy, I noted a discussion from 2010 in this forum between Mike Hawley and Wolf Vanderlinden during which it was taken for granted that any such investigations would have been illegal and I carried this into my trilogy - but I am having doubts that this is correct. I have difficulty with the concept that anyone would have been charged with a criminal offence for carrying out such investigations.

In respect of the Jarvis legal action, that point was made at the time that, if Labouchere's allegations were true, Jarvis would have been dismissed from the force but nothing was said about him being sent to prison.

Consequently, I have changed all references to "illegal" in my trilogy to "unlawful" which has a better chance of being correct but even here I am uncertain if that is the case.

What laws would have been broken by Scotland Yard investigating Parnell in America?

[Tom_Wescott]

David,

I've wondered about that as well. I'm not sure the investigations could have landed anyone in jail, but most likely would have caused professional and political problems.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Had the libel action reached court and the decision found in favour of Labouchere, Fred Jarvis would have been the sacrificial lamb.

Robert Anderson put it best—

"Inspector Jarvis had, in fact, been in America at the time indicated. But to have undertaken a mission outside the duty I had entrusted to him was a grave breach of discipline."

Regards,

Simon

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Hi All.

For some reason this quote springs to mind:

“Why does the Society for Psychical Research stand ingloriously idle?”
The Pall Mall Gazette, 4 October, 1888.

It seems that there are a couple of people on the board who feel the same way about me. To those I can only reply that a) I have a life, which is busy at the moment, b) I’m not sure why I should provide a quick assessment of David’s articles just because some people think I should jump at their command, and c) have you read the articles? They’re 73 pages in total. Densely packed with new facts, ideas, opinions and criticisms. David also tends to be redundant and he jumps around a bit so you have to read through many pages in order to track down his complete thoughts and evidence. It’s slow going so, as it is, I’m only going to post about his second article in detail.

I suppose, though, that there are those who believe that David’s articles are so well researched and his observations so spot on that all I can really do is doff my cap, tug at my forelock and back slowly away from his awesomeness with my tail between my legs. He did claim to “demolish” my arguments after all and I freely admit that he’s done a fairly good job. However, “demolished?” Wishful thinking, I’m afraid, and, as you will see, I do have just a few little problems with David’s work so bear with me if you will.

David.

Why is no-one dealing with the substance of the articles?

Actually I was waiting for you to answer my Evans/Gainey question with something more than “I don’t know what you’re talking about.” I’ll give that up since you don’t seem to want to answer it coherently other than you are The Demolisher (why you didn’t even mention Evans/Gainey’s names, let alone their theory, let alone attempt to demolish it, is the interesting point you evade). I was hoping, as I said, to try and get a handle on your agenda, if you have one. You see, I’ve been on Casebook for a very long time and in that time I have seen people come onto the boards who have ulterior motives.

Some want to write books or articles on the Whitechapel Murders but don’t have a firm grasp of the labyrinthine subject matter. One thing I’ve seen more than once are people who either openly ask for free opinions/proof reading/editing, so that they can work the bugs out before publishing, or they just start conversations so that they can use whatever others add without divulging their motives. Is that what you’re doing here, I wonder?

Also, I’d like to explain the following post. It doesn’t deal with the “substance” of part 2 of your article (that will come later). Below are just a few things that stuck in my mind after I read Part 2. Things that offer a small glimpse into your personality. Things like this:

While there is nothing strange about a police officer making contact with another police officer in a foreign city, it is (just) possible that the reason for Andrews' visit was that he had been invited to police headquarters in Montreal by Chief of Police Hughes in order to discuss the case of a British man, John Langhorn, who had been arrested by the Montreal police three days' earlier (17 December) after he claimed to be Jack the Ripper. Some newspaper reports stated: 'He will be held pending cable inquiries of Scotland Yard' (e.g. Maysville Evening Bulletin, 19.12.1888) but it should be said that Langhorn was discharged by the local magistrate with a caution on 18 December (Montreal Gazette, 19.12.1888), having claimed that he had just been having a bit of 'fun'. (Toronto Globe, 19.12.1888). Still, the Montreal police might have wanted Langhorn checked out and what could have been more natural than for Scotland Yard, having been cabled by the Montreal police about Langhorn, to have cabled Andrews to speak to the chief of police in Montreal while he was in that city when he stopped there en route to Halifax (as he had to do in order to change trains)? That might have explained his 'mission' and, naturally, he would not have told the reporters outside the station what he was up to.
Instead, as we have seen, Andrews entertained the Montreal reporters with a short update about Scotland Yard's investigation into the Whitechapel murders which was then misinterpreted as meaning that he was in Montreal to investigate those murders.

Now compare the above with this, from my 2005 Ripper Notes article on Tumblety (you know, the one you went over with a fine-toothed comb:

“With some time to kill before his train left that evening, he was apparently invited to Police Headquarters to meet with Chief of Police Hughes. This seems to have been the standard operating procedure when a visiting policeman, especially one with the stature of a real life Scotland Yard Inspector, was in town, however briefly.
It is likely that the Montréal Police Chief had a few questions to ask his London guest concerning Jack the Ripper and the Whitechapel murders. I don’t suggest this merely because the Ripper was a figure of world-wide fascination but because of the atmosphere of concern, if not panic, which the Canadian city found itself in at that exact moment. The day before Andrews had arrived in Canada the City Marshall of Halifax, Nova Scotia, had received a letter signed “Jack the Ripper.” On the 15th of December Chief Hughes himself had received a similar letter which was followed by one to the Montréal corporate officials. Only two days before the Inspector arrived in the city, a drunken Englishman named John Langhorn had been arrested after he had confessed to being the Ripper. He had been released with a caution only the day before. (For the particulars of all these letters and events see From the News Morgue, Ripper Notes #22, April, 2005.) There had also been press reports from New York about an ex-Montréaler named Tumblety who was suspected of being the killer. It is no wonder, therefore, that the city was suffering from a kind of Ripper mania and would be curious what their London guest might think.
Andrews freely gave a couple of interviews to the Montréal press about the Whitechapel murders.”

Your section seems amazingly similar to my earlier work. Oddly alike. Coincidence? Sorry, don’t buy it. Perhaps I should feel flattered as in imitation is the sincerest form of? However, I do find it interesting. As I do this:

There was no time to wait for the outcome of the Baxter proceedings. The evidence had to be provided to London fast even if it was relatively weak. According to the Toronto Evening News, the extradition papers had already been sent to London by the evening of 2 October, for the newspaper said on that date that Barnett would not be able to be held in England 'unless the depositions already sent are considered strong enough.' If correct, this would presumably mean that they were despatched immediately upon learning that Baxter would not be coming to Toronto. On the following day, 3 October 1888, in a gloomy assessment of the prospects for extradition, the same newspaper stated that:
'Roland Gideon Israel Barnett languisheth in an English prison, awaiting the arrival of the depositions that may set him at liberty or bring him across the sea to Toronto. It is well known among the legal fraternity that the depositions already made, and which have been endorsed by the Government authorities at Ottowa and sent to England, are not considered strong by those who took them, and that it is the reason why Baxter's evidence is considered necessary.'
A report in the Northern Advance newspaper on 4 October 1888 (possibly filed on 2 October) stated:
'The Minster of Justice attached yesterday the necessary signature to the papers which are intended to bring back to Canada Roland Gideon Barnett..'.
It may be that the papers were not sent to London until 4 October (bearing in mind that Wolf Vanderlinden has found a letter of that date enclosing them)…

There is a lot of detail here, almost half a page, about what various Toronto newspapers thought was going on with the extradition papers and to this you add your running commentary. However, this is all self-indulgent chaff when you take into account the last sentence – “It may be that the papers were not sent to London until 4 October (bearing in mind that Wolf Vanderlinden has found a letter of that date enclosing them)….”

The letter (printed almost in full in part 2 of my Tumblety article and properly sourced: Toronto Police Service fonds; accession box #106146; Letter Books of the Chief Constable of Toronto March-October, 1888; page 913½ , Toronto City Archives) from Chief Constable Grasett of the Toronto Police to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Criminal Investigation Department, Great Scotland Yard, proves that the documents were sent on the 4th of October. So why all the extraneous crap? Why all the filler?

It appears that you want to dazzle the credulous with your research skills, even though, in this case, your research is mostly irrelevant. It’s almost half a page of padding. It reminds me of "the old Russian saying," ‘If you throw enough bullshit against the wall and some of it will stick.’ That the actual answer to the question you were trying to answer comes from Chief Constable Grasett’s telegram (which I discovered), and this information is tacked on at the end, almost as a brief afterthought, tells me something about you. Apparently you feel the need to downplay the findings of others while, at the same time, highlighting your own extraneous research (presumably in order to “demolish” the other author’s works). Proof, apparently, that you don’t let like to let the facts get in the way of a good “demolishing.” As I said, interesting. As is this:

“Were they really trying to foist Barnett onto a reluctant Canadian police force, despite the fact that the Canadian police had initially asked for Barnett's extradition?...”
“There is no doubt that Barnett was badly wanted by the Toronto police. They issued a warrant for his extradition in September and then provided the requisite evidence in October.…”
“Clearly, Toronto wanted to press forward.…”

Okay, so it’s clear that the Canadian authorities “badly wanted” Barnett back and they jumped through all the legal hoops necessary in order to get him extradited. If you think otherwise, you’re wrong.

“It is not only that there is a timing problem, there is also the fundamental problem that the entire mission of Inspector Andrews was dependent on the Canadian authorities agreeing to indemnify the costs. In the absence of such an indemnity, it would have been a question for the Home Secretary as to whether whether (sic) the British government would fund the extradition. Either way, it is remarkable that an investigation into Tumblety, the suspected Whitechapel murderer - which was supposedly very important - was dependent on a decision from a foreign country as to whether it would agree (unknowingly) to pay for it.”…
“Dilly-dallying during almost the whole of November in the hope that the Canadians might agree to fund the extradition of Barnett to Canada does not make much sense.”

Okay, so there is a “fundamental problem” with a theory based on Scotland Yard hatching a plan to send Inspector Andrews to North America in connection with Tumblety: it was dependant on the “hope” that the Canadian authorities might want Barnett back enough to jump through all the necessary legal hoops and also agree to cover the costs. If they didn’t, and how could London know what a foreign country wanted, then the plan would collapse so the whole thing “does not make much sense.” If you think otherwise, you’re wrong.

Which one is it? Either the Canadian authorities clearly wanted Barnett back (so I’m wrong) or what the Canadian authorities wanted, or intended to do, was too unclear and uncertain (so Palmer’s wrong). You’re sucking and blowing at the same time.

Either way the interesting thing is how you flip flop between details so that you can “demolish” one person’s theory by saying one thing, then turn around and “demolish” another’s by saying the opposite. I guess as long as you are “demolishing” other people’s theories it doesn’t matter to you one way or another what you say. That doesn’t make it any easier to trust you or what you write.

One last thing for the moment. The capital of Canada is Ottawa not Ottowa. Perhaps you’ve confused it with some city in Germany. In the age of spellcheck this is just carelessness. This also tells me a little something about yourself.

Wolf.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi All,

Had the libel action reached court and the decision found in favour of Labouchere, Fred Jarvis would have been the sacrificial lamb.

Robert Anderson put it best—

"Inspector Jarvis had, in fact, been in America at the time indicated. But to have undertaken a mission outside the duty I had entrusted to him was a grave breach of discipline."

Regards,

Simon

This certainly waxes of a butt-saving maneuver, does it not?

Also just read Wolf's post and a big 'Oh snap!' to that. David can't say I didn't warn him about his choice of words in the article (i.e. 'demolish', etc.).

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[David Orsam]

I freely admit that he’s done a fairly good job.

Hi Wolf, thank you for that compliment. To avoid one overlong response I will now answer your points individually in separate posts.

[David Orsam]

Actually I was waiting for you to answer my Evans/Gainey question with something more than “I don’t know what you’re talking about.” I’ll give that up since you don’t seem to want to answer it coherently other than you are The Demolisher (why you didn’t even mention Evans/Gainey’s names, let alone their theory, let alone attempt to demolish it, is the interesting point you evade). I was hoping, as I said, to try and get a handle on your agenda, if you have one. You see, I’ve been on Casebook for a very long time and in that time I have seen people come onto the boards who have ulterior motives.

Some want to write books or articles on the Whitechapel Murders but don’t have a firm grasp of the labyrinthine subject matter. One thing I’ve seen more than once are people who either openly ask for free opinions/proof reading/editing, so that they can work the bugs out before publishing, or they just start conversations so that they can use whatever others add without divulging their motives. Is that what you’re doing here, I wonder?

The answer to your question at the end is: no. I can't see that there would be anything wrong in posting a draft here for comments and improvements. But that's not what I'm doing.

As for the "agenda" point, I can't help commenting that you are now sounding like Henry Labouchere himself, refusing to accept what you are being told in the clearest possible terms. I have told you repeatedly that there I have no agenda. I read the three articles by you, Simon Wood and R.J. Palmer, didn't think they were correct, did the research of primary sources which confirmed this - and wrote the trilogy. There was no need for me to read any secondary works and I did not do so. That is why Evans and Gainey, who you keep mentioning, are not referred to by me. I have already told you this but you don't seem to be able to absorb it.

I know that I have not evaded ANY point so if you seriously believe there is a point I have not responded to perhaps you could tell me what it is and I will attempt to deal with it.

[David Orsam]

Also, I’d like to explain the following post. It doesn’t deal with the “substance” of part 2 of your article (that will come later). Below are just a few things that stuck in my mind after I read Part 2. Things that offer a small glimpse into your personality. Things like this:

QUOTE

While there is nothing strange about a police officer making contact with another police officer in a foreign city, it is (just) possible that the reason for Andrews' visit was that he had been invited to police headquarters in Montreal by Chief of Police Hughes in order to discuss the case of a British man, John Langhorn, who had been arrested by the Montreal police three days' earlier (17 December) after he claimed to be Jack the Ripper. Some newspaper reports stated: 'He will be held pending cable inquiries of Scotland Yard' (e.g. Maysville Evening Bulletin, 19.12.1888) but it should be said that Langhorn was discharged by the local magistrate with a caution on 18 December (Montreal Gazette, 19.12.1888), having claimed that he had just been having a bit of 'fun'. (Toronto Globe, 19.12.1888). Still, the Montreal police might have wanted Langhorn checked out and what could have been more natural than for Scotland Yard, having been cabled by the Montreal police about Langhorn, to have cabled Andrews to speak to the chief of police in Montreal while he was in that city when he stopped there en route to Halifax (as he had to do in order to change trains)? That might have explained his 'mission' and, naturally, he would not have told the reporters outside the station what he was up to.
Instead, as we have seen, Andrews entertained the Montreal reporters with a short update about Scotland Yard's investigation into the Whitechapel murders which was then misinterpreted as meaning that he was in Montreal to investigate those murders.

Now compare the above with this, from my 2005 Ripper Notes article on Tumblety (you know, the one you went over with a fine-toothed comb:

“With some time to kill before his train left that evening, he was apparently invited to Police Headquarters to meet with Chief of Police Hughes. This seems to have been the standard operating procedure when a visiting policeman, especially one with the stature of a real life Scotland Yard Inspector, was in town, however briefly.
It is likely that the Montréal Police Chief had a few questions to ask his London guest concerning Jack the Ripper and the Whitechapel murders. I don’t suggest this merely because the Ripper was a figure of world-wide fascination but because of the atmosphere of concern, if not panic, which the Canadian city found itself in at that exact moment. The day before Andrews had arrived in Canada the City Marshall of Halifax, Nova Scotia, had received a letter signed “Jack the Ripper.” On the 15th of December Chief Hughes himself had received a similar letter which was followed by one to the Montréal corporate officials. Only two days before the Inspector arrived in the city, a drunken Englishman named John Langhorn had been arrested after he had confessed to being the Ripper. He had been released with a caution only the day before. (For the particulars of all these letters and events see From the News Morgue, Ripper Notes #22, April, 2005.) There had also been press reports from New York about an ex-Montréaler named Tumblety who was suspected of being the killer. It is no wonder, therefore, that the city was suffering from a kind of Ripper mania and would be curious what their London guest might think.
Andrews freely gave a couple of interviews to the Montréal press about the Whitechapel murders.”

Your section seems amazingly similar to my earlier work. Oddly alike. Coincidence? Sorry, don’t buy it. Perhaps I should feel flattered as in imitation is the sincerest form of? However, I do find it interesting.

Amazingly similar? I don't think so Wolf. My piece contains the quote from a newspaper: 'He will be held pending cable inquiries of Scotland Yard' which is a critical part of the argument that the Toronto police might have been wanting to discuss Langhorn with Andrews. It also contains a reference to Langhorn saying he was having "fun" which does not appear in your article. I'm not sure if you are alleging that I have plagiarised you but the two passages have a completely different structure and are making different arguments.

The Langhorn point was actually one that I first saw pushed by Simon Wood in his internet postings. His argument (such as he ever makes arguments) was that THIS was why Andrews was at the police HQ in Montreal, i.e. it had nothing to do with Jack the Ripper. I bought this point originally and in my first draft of The Third Man article I pushed it rather more strongly that I do in the final version.

In the interim, while continuing to check and polish my trilogy, I re-read your article in which I noticed that you mentioned that Langhorn had been released with a caution before Andrews had arrived in the city. I hadn't noticed this before. I don't even possess a fine tooth comb. I then checked the newspaper report that you had cited (in the actual 1888 newspaper), and found one or two more that you did not cite, which confirmed that Langhorn had indeed been released by the magistrate prior to Andrews' arrival. I nearly abandoned the point but in the end felt that it was still possible that the Montreal police wanted to discuss the case with Scotland Yard because the discharge did not clear Langhorn of committing any offences in the UK.

So while it is, of course, true that I refer to a couple of the same facts that you have referred to that is inevitable when we are dealing with facts.

Basically, I cannot see what you are complaining about. You do not have copyright over the case of John Langhorn and I mentioned him only as a possible reason for Andrews' visit to the police HQ. You have mentioned that such a visit would have been Standard Operating Procedure and I don't have any reason to disagree with that. If you are right about it, then that explains everything.

In short, I don't see what is "interesting" (your favourite word?) about any of the above.