The 'Suckered!' Trilogy

[David Orsam]

However, I do find it interesting. As I do this:


Quote:
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?

To say you have missed the point here Wolf - or rather avoided the issue - is an understatement. And I will make good that statement at the end of this post. Let me start with the point you are making.

As I mention in the passage you have cited, the Toronto Evening News of 2 October 1888 was saying that that the extradition papers had already been sent to London. I then go on to say that you found a letter of 4 October 1888 enclosing the extradition papers. I have not personally seen the original letter or the date on that letter but if there is a letter dated 4 October 1888 enclosing the extradition papers then it is fairly obvious that the papers were sent on that date. The difference of two days is absolutely irrelevant and I am not making any point out of it. As I go on to say, the papers "had certainly arrived in London by 15 October" and that is the end of it.

You are being extremely, one might even say, ridiculously over-sensitive. That is not "interesting". But what IS interesting is that you have totally failed to mention the substantive point that I make in the trilogy about your article. This is the key passage from "The Third Man":

"The reason, incidentally, why Vanderlinden felt able to say that the Canadians seemed to be resisting was on the basis of a newspaper report (for which he does not give a reference) that the Canadian justice minister was refusing to sign the necessary papers on 6 October. Thus, in the first of his two articles, he says, 'For some unknown reason there was a snag on the Canadian end, and it was reported on the 6th of October that the Canadian Minister of Justice, Sir John Thompson, was refusing to sign the necessary papers.' Bizarrely, however, in the second of his two articles, we find a footnote (number 3) which says that the New York Times of 6 October 1888 'stated that the problems with the extradition were caused by the Canadian Minister of Justice in Ottawa, Sir John Thompson, who was refusing to sign the papers' but, Vanderlinden then adds, 'This was incorrect but it did save the Toronto police some public embarrassment'. So Mr Vanderlinden here appears to be saying in his second article that the single source he had used to support an important point in his first article was totally wrong! Furthermore, as we have seen, there was a newspaper report on 4 October that the minister had already signed the papers by that date and, in the second of his two articles, Vanderlinden himself quotes a letter dated 4 October 1888 from Chief Constable Grassett to Robert Anderson, found in the Canadian archives, in which Grassett actually encloses the depositions and papers!"

It is very odd that you have absolutely nothing to say about this criticism, especially as I have quoted you relying on a newspaper report of 6 October that the Justice Minister was refusing to sign the papers even though those papers had been sent to England (as you say) on 4 October. That was the reason for the exclamation mark in my article.

I appreciate that elsewhere you say the newspaper report on 6 October was false - which is a point I make in the article - but the substantive point is that you were relying on it in support of your claim that "there was a snag on the Canadian end" and the Canadians were "resisting".

So Wolf, here is the challenge to you. Tell us:

1. Are you still saying that the Canadian Minister of Justice at any time refused to sign the extradition papers?

1a. If so, what is the evidence for this?

1b. If not, what was the "snag" on the Canadian end?

3. What evidence is there to support the claim in your article that the Canadians were "resisting"?

I surely don't to point out that this is a substantive issue which goes to the heart of your claim that Inspector Andrews was being sent by Scotland Yard to Canada - in the face of Canadian resistance - to conduct Parnell inquiries. Your exact words were: "It was as if the authorities were making sure that Barnett was returned to Toronto even if the Canadians seemed to be resisting".

Do you now wish to retract those words?

[David Orsam]

. 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:


Quote:
“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.


Quote:
“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.

You have gone badly wrong here Wolf due to an unfortunate failure to read and/or interpret my article properly. And you don't seem to know the difference in meaning between "the police" and "the authorities".

As you rightly say, my article contains the statement: "There is no doubt that Barnett was badly wanted by the Toronto police" (bold added). Your summary of this, however, is: "Okay, so it’s clear that the Canadian authorities “badly wanted” Barnett back..." (bold added). That's not what I said. My reference was to the police and the police only.

I can envisage a situation whereby the police were red hot keen to get Barnett back to Toronto only for the Canadian Government and/or Privy Council and/or Governor-General to cavil at the cost of the extradition and refuse to provide an indemnity to the British Government.

So your entire point fails at the first hurdle.

The second hurdle is that, in the passage of mine that you have quoted, I am not for one second saying that the Canadian authorities were not keen on extraditing Barnett. What I was saying (and I think quite clearly) is that it would have been odd if the British Government's big plan - or Scotland Yard's big plan - to insert an officer into Canada was entirely dependent on the funding being provided by a foreign government, the approval of which would have been completely outside of the control of the British Government/Scotland Yard.

I appreciate that you are desperate to find some sort of flaw or inconsistency in my trilogy but you clearly haven't found it here and, if I may say so, need to go back to the drawing board.

[David Orsam]

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.

It probably tells you that I can't spell Ottawa. But if you really think it goes further than that, it probably tells us something about you instead. And I'll let you into a big secret. When my article was first published I was told privately that I had spelt Nebraska wrong (now corrected). So you can add that to my psychological profile if you like.

[David Orsam]

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."

He wouldn't have been a "sacrificial lamb" at all, Simon, had he been carrying out Parnell investigations without the knowledge of his superiors. He would have been rightly dismissed from the force for doing things he was not supposed to have been doing. That was the point Anderson was making. It was the exact same point made by Jarvis in his memo requesting permission to commence proceedings in which he said that Labouchere "accuses me of conduct which if true would render me liable to well merited dismissal." It's not difficult to understand.

[Tom_Wescott]

He wouldn't have been a "sacrificial lamb" at all, Simon, had he been carrying out Parnell investigations without the knowledge of his superiors. He would have been rightly dismissed from the force for doing things he was not supposed to have been doing. That was the point Anderson was making. It was the exact same point made by Jarvis in his memo requesting permission to commence proceedings in which he said that Labouchere "accuses me of conduct which if true would render me liable to well merited dismissal." It's not difficult to understand.

Well, if Jarvis were actually carrying out such activity, he was doing so on the orders of his superiors. But Anderson's statement is denying his own knowledge thus leaving Jarvis to take the rap if need be. Fortunately for all involved, it wasn't necessary.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[David Orsam]

David can't say I didn't warn him about his choice of words in the article (i.e. 'demolish', etc.).

I certainly can't say you didn't warn me Tom - well I suppose I could because you can't warn someone about something after it's happened and I never spoke to you about the trilogy prior to publication - but I'm not going to say you didn't warn me. In fact, I am perfectly happy with my choice of words in my three articles; and the arguments I set out to demolish remain lying in a pile of rubble.

[David Orsam]

Well, if Jarvis were actually carrying out such activity, he was doing so on the orders of his superiors.

Tom, that statement simply is not true. Police officers have been known to do lots of things on their own, without the knowledge or blessing of their superiors, and Jarvis could, in theory, have been privately hired by the Times, or anyone else, to carry out secret investigations into Parnell or indeed have been doing something else in Del Norte about which his superior officers knew nothing.

But this arises out of my question which is on a totally different point, namely: would it have been illegal or unlawful if Jarvis had been carrying out such investigations, with or without the permission of any or all of the Commissioner, Assistant Commissioner, Chief Constable and Superintendent?

[Tom_Wescott]

I certainly can't say you didn't warn me Tom - well I suppose I could because you can't warn someone about something after it's happened and I never spoke to you about the trilogy prior to publication - but I'm not going to say you didn't warn me. In fact, I am perfectly happy with my choice of words in my three articles; and the arguments I set out to demolish remain lying in a pile of rubble.

Well, you keep going back and making little changes like 'illegal' to 'unlawful', so you could have changed some of the more inflammatory statements had you chosen to do so. It seems you have a grudge against Simon for some rude stuff he's said to you on here, and I guess Wolf just got caught in the crossfire due to his similar research. That's how it seems, mind you, but as we all know things are not always as they seem, so I suppose you should be extended the benefit of the doubt.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[David Orsam]

Well, you keep going back and making little changes like 'illegal' to 'unlawful', so you could have changed some of the more inflammatory statements had you chosen to do so.

No substantive changes have been made in secret to my articles, Tom. I have openly flagged all amendments, other than a couple of minor typos, in this thread, hence my post about the change from "illegal" to "unlawful" (and I am keeping "unlawful" under review). It follows that no "inflammatory statements" as you call them, have been amended.

It seems you have a grudge against Simon for some rude stuff he's said to you on here, and I guess Wolf just got caught in the crossfire due to his similar research. That's how it seems, mind you, but as we all know things are not always as they seem, so I suppose you should be extended the benefit of the doubt.

That may be how it seems to you Tom but, as we've learnt from this thread, things as they seem to you do not always bear any connection to reality.

[Tom_Wescott]

That may be how it seems to you Tom but, as we've learnt from this thread, things as they seem to you do not always bear any connection to reality.

You mean because I think that Wolf's and Simon's perspective on the present matter shouldn't be dismissed off hand as conspiracist fantasies just because it poses a problem to police apologists?

You should at least be willing to admit that you don't know for sure what the 'reality' is. I've said that, Simon's said that Wolf's at least hinted at it. You're the only one screaming that you have proof! proof! proof! that will demolish his opponent, yet you have not provided proof on that level. Ironically, you're rather the Labouchere character in this little Casebook drama. Simon, of course, is the British agent in America and Wolf is holding down the fort in Canada.

Yours truly,

Tom

P.S. I'm Henry Matthews

[Jonathan H]

I don't agree Tom, at all. They are not in equipoise. David has acted with good manners and intellectual integrity.

The response from some quarters is, predictably, snide and infantile.

David has done incisive, meticulous research and argued his revisionist case with care and aplomb.

The onus is on some people to respond either as mature people who can honestly and robustly debate the meaning of ambiguous and incomplete sources or be revealed as simply buffs who are, consequently and tiresomely, doctrinaire, rude and petty (did I spell that correctly?)

I would just add that R. J. Palmer had surgically demolished the Andrews-Parnell revisionist argument a few years ago. David arrived at what was already a smoking ruin and bulldozed the remnants into a pit. Nothing wrong with that. I am just saying that a new researcher discovering that the Parnell angle is mistaken was not a surprise.

But is David's argument similarly devastating against Palmer's take on Andrews investigating Tumblety? He certainly makes a very good case using new sources, and has found a doozy -- a Canadian newspaper quoting Andrews to the effect that he is not after Tumblety and saying that the latter is not a Ripper suspect.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Jonathan, I wasn't sure what you were on about until I saw this part:

But is David's argument similarly devastating against Palmer's take on Andrews investigating Tumblety? He certainly makes a very good case using new sources, and has found a doozy -- a Canadian newspaper quoting Andrews to the effect that he is not after Tumblety and saying that the latter is not a Ripper suspect.

Now it's crystal clear.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mklhawley]

Hi Jonathan, I wasn't sure what you were on about until I saw this part:

But is David's argument similarly devastating against Palmer's take on Andrews investigating Tumblety? He certainly makes a very good case using new sources, and has found a doozy -- a Canadian newspaper quoting Andrews to the effect that he is not after Tumblety and saying that the latter is not a Ripper suspect.

Now it's crystal clear.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hi Tom,

Your crystal is slightly opaque. David has clarified the research a bit. There is more.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Mayerling]

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.

Hi David,

Thank you for the answers to my question - I really thought Lewis & Lewis were not Labouchere's solicitors (being that Sir George Lewis, despite his impeccable reputation as a solicitor for the wealthy and powerful happened to be Jewish - and we know what Labouchere thought of Jews).

Too bad if they did destroy the files.

Thanks again.

Jeff

[Mayerling]

I am sorry to all but I do have another pair of minor questions to ask - they are linked.

1) When was the legal idea of "workers compensation" adopted in the United Kingdom? I know that it originated (apparently in Europe) in the German Empire created by Otto von Bismarck in the late 1870s or 1880s to counter the Socialist Parties appeals (he also started pension plans to do this). So I wonder if the U.K. quickly followed suit.

2) If I am right in my timing and the U.K. began using workers compensation in the 1880s, when was it begun for the British police, in particular Scotland Yard. I am aware that at the time of the 1910 Houndsditch killings (that led to the "Siege of Sidney Street") the police officers who were badly wounded were pensioned off - I don't know if this was the practice or if this was from "Workers Compensation.

Thank you regarding these matters.

Jeff