The 'Suckered!' Trilogy

[Robert]

Hi Jeff

So Labouchere was the coiner of 'collars and cuffs'? He wasn't exactly tactful. I think I remember reading somewhere that the kind of collar worn by PAV was called a jampot collar.

Yes it can be hard to find reports of withdrawn libel actions or out-of-court settlements. In late 1890 Labouchere was threatened with libel proceedings by Walter Austin, who seems as far as I can gather to have been a charity fraudster operating the London Cottages Mission. As far as I can tell, Austin was told that his action would fail, though I have found no definite announcement of his withdrawal.

Hi David

That was my point - IF Labouchere still thought there was some hope of 'nailing' Jarvis, he might have sought a less unequivocal form of words - the fact that he didn't therefore suggesting that he knew it was all bunk. But as you say these libel backdowns all vary.

[David Orsam]

In a legal sense, you're certainly correct. But his 'admission' was hardly convincing. There's a couple people who accept John Pizer's 'admission' of being Leather Apron simply because they want to accept it, but to many others it's obvious he was being compelled to make the admission. The same might be true in Labouchere's case. How can we say? If we can't take Labouchere at his word alone, that would have to apply to all his claims, including his weak and undetailed admission. If we knew his source material (assuming there was any) then we'd probably have a better idea of the truth.
It would certainly be nice to know the real reason he withdrew his accusations.

There's no "legal sense" involved here Tom. Labouchere wrote in plain English. His letter to the Times was not a legal letter at all. Have you read it? In what world was his clear admission that the allegations were all false not convincing? What more could he possibly have said????? Pizer is no comparison because that was a one line (rather vague) answer in the witness box. Labouchere's admissions were considered, lengthy, written admissions of the falseness of his allegations. We know exactly why he withdrew his allegations. They were false, just like he said. It's utterly perverse of you to continue to suggest there can be any other reason.

[PaulB]

There is no hypocrisy

You clearly put too much faith in the accuracy of newspapers articles. Sir George Arthur was arrested on suspicion of being the Ripper, that is not in dispute, and it seem the newspapers made a great play of that fact being a peer of the realm.

Tumblety wasn't arrested for being the Ripper he was arrested for Gross indecency, that's the difference. Now I hope you will stop banging on about Sir George Arthur and stop citing secondary newspaper articles.

You aren't going to make much headway persuading people that you are right and David's wrong if you keep claiming that newspapers are secondery sources. You don't even know what primary and secondary sources are. I really don't understand why sensible people bother to argue with you anymore.

[David Orsam]

I wonder whether, when a man is being sued for libel and wants to reach an out-of-court settlement, there are shades of mea culpa? E.g. "The allegations are wholly false" would be the most whole-hearted formula. "I retract the allegations, for which I have no evidence" might be another, but this would have the implied hint that evidence might be obtained at some point in the future. Perhaps the first form of words would cost the defendant less money than the second? I'm wondering if Labouchere, if he was really convinced that he was right, could have got away with a less unequivocal form of words, while giving Jarvis a few hundred more, which he could easily have afforded. I think it would be interesting to compile a list of all Labouchere's libel disputes, of which I suspect there were many, and see how often he backed down and what form of words he used.

There's no set formula here Robert and you will never find one. Everything depends on the individual circumstances of the litigation, the strengths and weaknesses of both sides' arguments (not just on the facts but also the law) and the positions of the individual lawyers and parties involved in settlement negotiations as to what is an acceptable form of compromise. Therefore, when you say "I'm wondering if Labouchere, if he was really convinced that he was right, could have got away with a less unequivocal form of words, while giving Jarvis a few hundred more, which he could easily have afforded" there is just no answer to that because it would all depend on what form of words Jarvis and his lawyers were prepared to accept as part of an agreed apology. Labouchere could have offered a thousand pounds but without a public apology that might have been rejected. Equally, he could have made a grovelling public apology but paid no money and that might have been accepted. It probably goes without saying but I would also just comment on the part of your scenario which says "if he was really convinced that he was right" because it is clear from his own letter to the Times that he knew and accepted that he was wrong on the facts of the case.

[David Orsam]

Well to the victor the spoils

You just keep on digging that hole Trevor.

[David Orsam]

Then it is line with what you keep writing

Mike was making a very simple, straightforward, point and you either failed to grasp it or pretended to fail to grasp it. I'm not sure which is worse.

[Mayerling]

I wonder whether, when a man is being sued for libel and wants to reach an out-of-court settlement, there are shades of mea culpa? E.g. "The allegations are wholly false" would be the most whole-hearted formula. "I retract the allegations, for which I have no evidence" might be another, but this would have the implied hint that evidence might be obtained at some point in the future. Perhaps the first form of words would cost the defendant less money than the second? I'm wondering if Labouchere, if he was really convinced that he was right, could have got away with a less unequivocal form of words, while giving Jarvis a few hundred more, which he could easily have afforded. I think it would be interesting to compile a list of all Labouchere's libel disputes, of which I suspect there were many, and see how often he backed down and what form of words he used.

Hi Robert,

I imagine that to find a list of his libel disputes, one would have to search the newspapers' legal columns from the late 1870s to the beginning of the 20th Century (similar to searching for cases that Montie Druitt was a barrister in) which mention Labouchere and his newspaper "Truth". Problem is that I don't know how frequently an out-of-court settlement would have been made into a news item.

By the way - as a side issue here - I recalled the other night that Labouchere was also the fellow who nicknamed the Duke of Clarence "Collars and Cuffs" after (supposedly) seeing a studio photograph of Clarence supposedly in the highlands fishing while overdressed. As Prince Eddy was his mother's favorite, and was close to grandma Victoria, the comment was an additional reason for the Royal Family to hate Labouchere and insist he never get a cabinet or diplomatic post in 1892 - 1895, and again from 1905 - 1906 when he retired.

Jeff

[Tom_Wescott]

I'm kind of blown away by this statement Tom. I appreciate you have said that the burden of proof is on Simon Wood to prove Labouchere's allegations were true but still, I'm amazed you feel you can say this. Labouchere admitted he was wrong. He admitted the allegations were false. I don't need to prove a single thing but, in any event, all the known evidence shows that Jarvis was in Canada chasing Barton in December 1888. It is, without doubt, case closed.

In a legal sense, you're certainly correct. But his 'admission' was hardly convincing. There's a couple people who accept John Pizer's 'admission' of being Leather Apron simply because they want to accept it, but to many others it's obvious he was being compelled to make the admission. The same might be true in Labouchere's case. How can we say? If we can't take Labouchere at his word alone, that would have to apply to all his claims, including his weak and undetailed admission. If we knew his source material (assuming there was any) then we'd probably have a better idea of the truth.
It would certainly be nice to know the real reason he withdrew his accusations.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Robert]

I wonder whether, when a man is being sued for libel and wants to reach an out-of-court settlement, there are shades of mea culpa? E.g. "The allegations are wholly false" would be the most whole-hearted formula. "I retract the allegations, for which I have no evidence" might be another, but this would have the implied hint that evidence might be obtained at some point in the future. Perhaps the first form of words would cost the defendant less money than the second? I'm wondering if Labouchere, if he was really convinced that he was right, could have got away with a less unequivocal form of words, while giving Jarvis a few hundred more, which he could easily have afforded. I think it would be interesting to compile a list of all Labouchere's libel disputes, of which I suspect there were many, and see how often he backed down and what form of words he used.

[Trevor Marriott]

So I'm put on a list with Trevor Marriott because I forgot which Tumblety article came first? As for the PM, that was merely an oversight on my part. I read your PM in an e-mail sent to me and forgot to reply next time I logged on to Casebook. I don't get on CB much any more in case you didn't notice and when I do I'm not on for terribly long. If you look at my last post to this thread prior to today, that was the last time I was on. Also, your PM (which I just read for the second time) was more of a statement than something begging for a response.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

At least you are on a winning list !

[Trevor Marriott]

With all this tremendous advance publicity, and people waiting with bated breath for my article, I do hope Ripperologist decide to publish it. Assuming they do, Trevor, I look forward to discussing the point with you again then, if you are able to emerge from the deep hole that you have dug for yourself in this thread.

Well to the victor the spoils

[Trevor Marriott]

While this is all completely off-topic, it is fair to point out that your answer here, Trevor, makes no sense at all in a way that is almost alarming.

Then it is line with what you keep writing

[David Orsam]

David has not proved that Labouchere was wrong

I'm kind of blown away by this statement Tom. I appreciate you have said that the burden of proof is on Simon Wood to prove Labouchere's allegations were true but still, I'm amazed you feel you can say this. Labouchere admitted he was wrong. He admitted the allegations were false. I don't need to prove a single thing but, in any event, all the known evidence shows that Jarvis was in Canada chasing Barton in December 1888. It is, without doubt, case closed.

[Tom_Wescott]

You made the list because you never replied to my PM. Quite revealing. You forgot that Simon's outdated 'Smoke and Mirrors' article was before Roger's. There's actually more to the story and for you to make a conclusion, stand by.

Mike

So I'm put on a list with Trevor Marriott because I forgot which Tumblety article came first? As for the PM, that was merely an oversight on my part. I read your PM in an e-mail sent to me and forgot to reply next time I logged on to Casebook. I don't get on CB much any more in case you didn't notice and when I do I'm not on for terribly long. If you look at my last post to this thread prior to today, that was the last time I was on. Also, your PM (which I just read for the second time) was more of a statement than something begging for a response.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mklhawley]

How did I make this list? Because I observed (quite accurately) that the Andrews escapade to North America started out as solely about Tumblety and is now about Parnell with Tumblety mentioned only as a side note by authors?

As for the David vs Simon argument, both of them make valid points. David has not proved that Labouchere was wrong, but then perhaps the burden should fall on the accuser, and in this case I don't recall any actual evidence supporting Labouchere's accusations. Even another MP or PI or investigator corroborating him would have gone a long way. Labouchere makes enticing claims of absolute proof and witnesses and this and that, but where the hell is it and who the hell are they? Without that stuff this is all truly a he said/she said thing. So I'm not yet convinced either way. The idea of some members of the police force supporting the Times is absolutely plausible and probably did happen, but without some kind of evidence, to say it did is just an idea. But I can't say I agree with David's pollyanna view of the police, and since it hasn't been proved that Labouchere was lying the possibility exists that he wasn't.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

You made the list because you never replied to my PM. Quite revealing. You forgot that Simon's outdated 'Smoke and Mirrors' article was before Roger's. There's actually more to the story and for you to make a conclusion, stand by.

Mike