The 'Suckered!' Trilogy

[Tom_Wescott]

I do have some problems, however. A couple of people have e-mailed me about David's tone towards me, so more than just Tom wonders about that. The idea that David is being "dickish," as one person said to me, is out there.

Good to have Wolf with us, but just for clarity I'll mention that I'm not among those who've e-mailed Wolf. Anything I've had to say about David's tone has been said publicly on this thread.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Those questions weren't for just Simon, but everyone else on Simon's conspiratorial sinking ship. Phil? Tom? Trevor?

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

[David Orsam]

Well you keep believing that its untrue because so far you have not produced one scrap of evidence to support your suggestion.

I wait with baited breath for you to come up with some wacky explanation as to how the Oscar Wilde case differed from Tumbletys.

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.

[David Orsam]

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.

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.

[mklhawley]

Sir George Arthur was arrested on suspicion of being the Ripper, that is not in dispute,

But therein lies your problem, why is it not in dispute in your mind since its only source is a newspaper clipping also stating Tumblety was arrested on suspicion.

[Trevor Marriott]

As I am waiting with 'bated' breath for you to explain away your hypocrisy. You claim articles are secondary sources, therefore unreliable, yet you wholeheartedly accept the Sir George Arthur arrest story even though the November 17, 1888 NY World article by London correspondent E. Tracy Greaves is the ONLY source. YET, this is the very same article that first claimed Tumblety was initially arrested on suspicion - something you wholeheartedly reject!

Hmmm.

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.

[mklhawley]

Well you keep believing that its untrue because so far you have not produced one scrap of evidence to support your suggestion.

I wait with baited breath for you to come up with some wacky explanation as to how the Oscar Wilde case differed from Tumbletys.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

As I am waiting with 'bated' breath for you to explain away your hypocrisy. You claim articles are secondary sources, therefore unreliable, yet you wholeheartedly accept the Sir George Arthur arrest story even though the November 17, 1888 NY World article by London correspondent E. Tracy Greaves is the ONLY source. YET, this is the very same article that first claimed Tumblety was initially arrested on suspicion - something you wholeheartedly reject!

Hmmm.

[Trevor Marriott]

Had I said that Trevor it would have been untrue. Which explains why I didn't.

Well you keep believing that its untrue because so far you have not produced one scrap of evidence to support your suggestion.

I wait with baited breath for you to come up with some wacky explanation as to how the Oscar Wilde case differed from Tumbletys.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[David Orsam]

Your silence on the material matters in hand could have been broken by replying by saying "Yes Trevor you are right, Tumblety could not have got bail on Nov 7th, and that it was not automatic that bail was granted following committal, as the Oscar Wilde case clearly shows"

Had I said that Trevor it would have been untrue. Which explains why I didn't.

[Mayerling]

...and Abberline was said to look more like an accountant (or banker?) than a detective.

Maybe that was why they became so successful as a detective force - they didn't look like detectives!

Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

The silence was not deafening Trevor. The Holloway prison thread, in which you made your off-topic posting about Oscar Wilde (because the Tumblety thread had already been locked) was locked on 17 April. I could not then make a response in any thread because it was against the rules to continue to post on the subject of a locked thread. On 19 April, I posted (in the rather more correct 'Cracking the Calendar Code' thread) the following:

"Now, I did have a lot more to say on the topic of Oscar Wilde - and indeed was planning to start a new thread entitled "Tumblety Goes Wilde" - but, on reflection, and given recent events in this forum, it might be best to let this subject (which seems to be quite inflammatory) die. And we are going round in circles on it in any event. I now need some time to re-write these posts into an article (and I have another long article on a Tumbelty related subject to write up) - posting on these boards takes up a huge amount of one's time - so to the extent I have more to say on the Wilde example, or anything else on Tumblety's bail, I will include it in that article.

Thanks to everyone for their contributions to this topic, for reading and understanding my long posts, and I hope that if my article ever does get published you will enjoy it."

Chris then said to me:

"Yes, I think that will be the best thing to do, all things considered.

What puzzles me about the Wilde case is how the magistrate could refuse him bail even at committal. But I'll be happy to wait for the answer in your article (unless anyone else here would like to explain it before then)."

I then replied to him as follows:

"I can fully answer this Chris - and it would have formed the subject of a thread on its own - but the one point that has never been made against me is that the 1848 Act (as well as all textbooks from the period, including Douglas) does not mean what it says about bail being automatic upon committal. While I fully understand your puzzlement in this case, and was looking forward to explaining it in my intended "Tumblety Goes Wilde" thread, I thought it might be better in the article. However, if the puzzlement is so great that there is pressure from members of this forum to deal with the point I will certainly do so."

Chris then replied:

"Well, when I did a bit of searching for information about Wilde I came across some references that suggested the act wasn't treated as saying what it did say. But that puzzled me even more."

My response was:

"Without actually posting the answer on here, I don't know what to say. I can only guarantee that you will not be puzzled when I explain it."

Chris then posted to say that he agreed with my decision.

So I don't know how you can possibly refer to my 'silence' on the matter when I was not silent at all.

Your silence on the material matters in hand could have been broken by replying by saying "Yes Trevor you are right, Tumblety could not have got bail on Nov 7th, and that it was not automatic that bail was granted following committal, as the Oscar Wilde case clearly shows"

[Mayerling]

As for the topic of this thread, when you publish an argument in support of an allegation that the Home Secretary, Commissioner of Police and Assistant Commissioner in charge of the C.I.D. all made false statements, and that there was a conspiracy involving Scotland Yard officers to commit illegal acts in a foreign country, you do really need some sort of evidence to back up that argument don't you? My point is that there is absolutely no evidence at all to support it and all you have done is repeat the Labouchere allegations which never had any evidential support in the first place and which even he accepted were false and withdrew.

Are you now going to do the honourable thing and withdraw your own argument?

Just like my previous comments on Labouchere, this one has made me consider a curious point about history - we tend to forget certain incidents which occupied our attention for a few weeks or months, but just eventually blew over. In this case, the comment (although specifically relating to "Scotland Yard") should be shown in some type of broader context.

Recently there has been a serious strain in U.S. - German relations when the Merkle government learned that spying on German citizens by U.S. agencies was going on without getting any permission or even explaining the situation to a trusted ally. Well, it is one of those unfortunate side effects (i.e. "bullying") that superpowers show to countries they should not misbehave towards. The U.S. in the last half century or so certainly has this unfortunate habit.

It should be (however) no surprise that in the 19th Century the reverse was true. A weaker U.S., at best a leading secondary state, was fair game if a superpower in Europe felt it was to their advantage to do a number on us. In the American Civil War the French Second Empire under Napoleon III took advantage of out national nightmare to invade Mexico and set up a puppet regime (that lasted until 1867) under the Austrian Archduke Maximillian and his wife Carlotta (as Emperor and Empress).

France was not alone in this kind of behavior. In the 1850s Great Britain pulled a fast one on us - though to be honest it was done so subtly that it almost passed unnoticed.

During the Crimean War enlistments in Great Britain began to decline with news of the military disasters near Sebastopol. The British Government tried to find new sources for men. At the time there was no Canada, but an amalgram of colonies known as "British North America". The Premier of Nova Scotia, Joseph Howe, came up with a curiously daring scheme. He suggested to the British authorities to set up recruitment centers in the United States Midwest and Eastern states, and offer benefits for Americans who'd sign up to fight the Russians. Keep in mind this is not a set of Americans who feel appalled by the Russians and decide to volunteer by going to Toronto or Halifax to enlist. They are enlisting in Cincinatti and New York City.

Why the British okayed this crack-brained scheme I have never figured out (I actually researched this story for a book I was trying to write about twenty five years ago). Never-the-less, okay it they did, and the centers were opened by the British counsels in three cities (Philadelphia was the third). The British did not realize that the Russians had an unexpected ally too. The Irish, slowly recovering in 1856 from the nightmare years of the "Potato Famine" in the 1840s, and the escape by emigration to the British Empire and the United States, deeply resented what they felt was not done for them (and more to the point what they felt was done to them). British activities were already being monitored by Irish immigrants in the U.S., and soon the three recruitment centers were discovered by them. Gleefully they revealed this to the Federal Government in Washington, D.C.

1856 was not a great year for the U.S. The increasingly acrimonious debate over slavery was leading to the Civil War. Presidential leadership under Franklin Pierce was non-existent. Yet like many weak chief executives, Pierce found that he could have some successes in foreign policy matters. He and his Secretary of State William Marcy resented the idea that the British Government treated us like we were a colony, even though we had been independent from them since 1783, and had fought a second war with them from 1812-1815. Hell, we had even peacefully settled the Oregon Territory dispute with them in 1846 by a sensible compromise. This activity was uncalled for. Pierce (for a change with popular support) demanded that the three consuls in Cincinatti, Philadelphia, and New York City leave the country, and also demanded the recall of Sir John Crampton, the Minister from Great Britain. Crampton was also recalled.

Two points struck me remembering the incident: the direct activities of British agents on U.S. soil (although these were diplomats, not police officers) affecting or in contravention to our laws, and the involvement of pre-Fenian Irish Americans keeping tabs on the British. It sort of sets up the situation (in terms of a mind set) for Americans at the time of the 1888-89 situation, by showing what they had come to expect from a past event with Britain.

Jeff

[David Orsam]

Au contraire mon ami. The thread was re opened and the silence was deafening. It vindicates my earlier stuff and as stated blows your negating argument out of the water. Its a shame it looks as if I will have to do it all over again

The silence was not deafening Trevor. The Holloway prison thread, in which you made your off-topic posting about Oscar Wilde (because the Tumblety thread had already been locked) was locked on 17 April. I could not then make a response in any thread because it was against the rules to continue to post on the subject of a locked thread. On 19 April, I posted (in the rather more correct 'Cracking the Calendar Code' thread) the following:

"Now, I did have a lot more to say on the topic of Oscar Wilde - and indeed was planning to start a new thread entitled "Tumblety Goes Wilde" - but, on reflection, and given recent events in this forum, it might be best to let this subject (which seems to be quite inflammatory) die. And we are going round in circles on it in any event. I now need some time to re-write these posts into an article (and I have another long article on a Tumbelty related subject to write up) - posting on these boards takes up a huge amount of one's time - so to the extent I have more to say on the Wilde example, or anything else on Tumblety's bail, I will include it in that article.

Thanks to everyone for their contributions to this topic, for reading and understanding my long posts, and I hope that if my article ever does get published you will enjoy it."

Chris then said to me:

"Yes, I think that will be the best thing to do, all things considered.

What puzzles me about the Wilde case is how the magistrate could refuse him bail even at committal. But I'll be happy to wait for the answer in your article (unless anyone else here would like to explain it before then)."

I then replied to him as follows:

"I can fully answer this Chris - and it would have formed the subject of a thread on its own - but the one point that has never been made against me is that the 1848 Act (as well as all textbooks from the period, including Douglas) does not mean what it says about bail being automatic upon committal. While I fully understand your puzzlement in this case, and was looking forward to explaining it in my intended "Tumblety Goes Wilde" thread, I thought it might be better in the article. However, if the puzzlement is so great that there is pressure from members of this forum to deal with the point I will certainly do so."

Chris then replied:

"Well, when I did a bit of searching for information about Wilde I came across some references that suggested the act wasn't treated as saying what it did say. But that puzzled me even more."

My response was:

"Without actually posting the answer on here, I don't know what to say. I can only guarantee that you will not be puzzled when I explain it."

Chris then posted to say that he agreed with my decision.

So I don't know how you can possibly refer to my 'silence' on the matter when I was not silent at all.

[mklhawley]

Au contraire mon ami. The thread was re opened and the silence was deafening. It vindicates my earlier stuff and as stated blows your negating argument out of the water. Its a shame it looks as if I will have to do it all over again

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Really? Wow

[mklhawley]

Looking at the woodcut drawing of Inspector Jarvis, I'm struck at how unlike one's image of a detective from Scotland Yard he looks. With his spectacles and moustace and prominent girth he looks either like a professor or a successful middle class businessman.

Jeff

...and Abberline was said to look more like an accountant (or banker?) than a detective.