The 'Suckered!' Trilogy

[Tom_Wescott]

Are you serious? Even Simon has acknowledged that there is original research in my article: "That you have filled-in hitherto overlooked aspects of Jarvis's itinerary in January 1889 is a credit to you. I doff my cap." (#207)

Then there is the file HO144/478/X27302 which Simon has belatedly referred to in this thread (but not in his article or book) containing the Anderson briefing notes, the request by Jarvis to commence litigation against Labouchere, the internal thinking of the Commissioner and the Home Secretary and more.

Then there is the internal Home Office correspondence demonstrating the efforts being made to hunt down Barton and specifically mentions of Inspector Jarvis being in Canada to do this.

None of this was mentioned by Simon Wood in his article or book.

I might add that almost every post you make in this thread confirms my belief you have not read my trilogy properly. It goes back to your comment to Simon Wood that "I don't remember David's article containing all the Labouchere revelations that I'm reading in your book" (#46) despite me dealing in great detail with all of the Labouchere revelations.

I never questioned that there was original research in your article. I stated I'm unclear specifically what the original research was, outside of the reams of stuff on Barnett.

As for my harping on 'proof'. I don't normally expect such a thing unless a writer starts his piece by stating he will completely demolish an opposing theory. When I read that, then yes, I expect some sort of proof. Otherwise, you're simply making a counter-argument. And there's nothing wrong with a counter-argument. We all make them. But don't sell me an apple and hand me an orange, knowwhatI'msayin'?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[David Orsam]

Stewart and Roger made cogent arguments that Andrews did indeed come to Toronto – at least in part – for Francis Tumblety, not based upon mere speculation but based upon multiple sources, all in corroboration with each other. There are multiple newspaper reports, Chief Inspector Walter Dew’s comments about Andrews being involved in the Ripper case, and Guy Logan’s statement.

Guy Logan's statement contradicts, not corroborates, Palmer's argument. Walter Dew says nothing about Andrews going to Canada on Tumblety business. So he corroborates nothing. None of the newspaper reports – which also contradict Palmer's argument by saying that Andrews was searching for the Whitechapel Murderer (not specifically Tumblety) – are credible for the reasons I have set out at length.

and I command you the said Inspector Walter Andrews to receive the said Roland Israel Gideon Barnett into your custody and to convey him within the jurisdiction of the said Dominion of Canada and there to place him in the custody of any person or persons appointed by the said Dominion to receive him, for which this shall be your Warrant.[/I]

Nowhere in these orders does it direct Andrews to escort Barnett to Toronto, just within the jurisdiction of the Dominion of Canada.

Not just within the jurisdiction of the Dominion of Canada. The warrant also tasks Andrews to place him in the custody of "any person or persons appointed by the said Dominion to receive him", as you have highlighted.

In Anderson’s letter to Home Office, however, he informs them that in order for Andrews to escort Barnett all the way to Toronto, it will cost Canada an indemnity of £120

Not correct. He estimated that the expenses of conveying a prisoner to Canada would be £120 and asked the Home Office whether an indemnity was going to be obtained from Canada to cover this cost.

With time being ‘of the essence’ in order to stop Barnett’s application for release, Canada merely acquiesced to the amount.

Not correct. The Canadian Government agreed to pay "all expenses" in connection with Barnett's extradition.

Notice how Anderson stated the sentence, ‘will be obtained in Canada’.

He was referring to the indemnity, not the money.

The money was not going to be telegraphed to Andrews prior to his trip; it was going to be given to him upon his arrival in Halifax.

Not correct. No money was going to be given to Andrews on his arrival in Halifax. The money for the trip, which came from the Police Fund, was reclaimed through official channels by the Receiver of the Metropolitan Police via the Colonial office some time after Andrews' return to London.

If he did not receive the £120, Andrews would still have satisfied the orders of the warrant, but he would have been under no obligation to escort the prisoner to Toronto.

As Andrews was never going to receive £120 from the Canadians, it follows that this is not correct.

David points out what Inspector Stark stated to a Toronto Mail reporter specific to Andrews being in charge of the prisoner to Toronto,

Inspector Andrews was in charge of the prisoner, and the bearer of a warrant from the Imperial Government to deliver the prisoner over to the authorities at Toronto. Any person who interfered with him in the discharge of that duty, did so at his peril. (Toronto Daily Mail, Dec 12, 1888)

Stark gave the reporter misinformation.

Why would Stark have given the reporter misinformation? On your argument, it can't have been because he knew that Andrews had come on Tumblety business because this was supposed to be a big secret from the Canadians who were unwittingly paying for the mission. Has it occurred to you that the authorities at Toronto might have been "the person or persons" appointed by the Dominion Government of Canada to receive Barnett? In that event, Stark was providing correct information.

The warrant was for the delivery of the prisoner to the Dominion of Canada.

This is not correct. You can't simply deliver a prisoner "to the Dominion of Canada". The warrant was for Andrews to convey Barnett within the jurisdiction of Canada and to place him into the custody of a person or persons appointed by the said Dominion of Canada to receive him. You highlighted this in bold!

Andrews had a mission to Toronto, which had nothing to do with the warrant. So, why did Scotland Yard request an indemnity of £120, whereby extending Andrews trip all the way to Toronto, as opposed to just the Dominion of Canada, i.e., Halifax?

Scotland Yard did not request an indemnity of £120. That figure was an estimate of the costs. They requested an indemnity to cover all costs of the extradition. Anderson estimated that the costs of the extradition would be £120.

Toronto sent Detective Stark there, and he taking charge of the prisoner would not have violated the warrant.

It would have violated the warrant if Detective Stark had not been appointed by the Dominion Government of Canada to receive Barnett. You have not offered any evidence that he was so appointed. Stark indicated that Andrews had to return Barnett to the authorities in Toronto (which I interpret as the judicial authorities in Toronto) so the likelihood is that the judicial authorities in Toronto – in other words the magistrate in Toronto – had been appointed by the Dominion Government of Canada to receive Barnett into custody. The key thing is what was in Andrews' mind as to what he was supposed to be doing. As I said in my trilogy: "Andrews evidently did not regard his duty as having been discharged by transferring Barnett into the custody of a Toronto police officer at Halifax."

Even if it was a case of Andrews not trusting Stark to escort Barnett through Canada, Canadian officials – the ones who paid Andrews’ way to Toronto – would have trusted Stark, therefore, they would not have paid the full £120.

This is hopeless and baseless speculation.

Since Andrews stayed until the committal hearing, David also surmised it was because Canadian officials believed he might be needed to testify about the legality of the London arrest. Interestingly, the Toronto Evening News stated Andrews was in court, but “away over in a corner”, clearly not testifying.

How is that interesting? I never said he did testify. I said "it should be obvious that Andrews might have been needed to give evidence to the Toronto magistrate of Barnett's arrest in London in case anything about the legality that arrest was challenged." It is surely obvious that he might have been needed to testify in case the legality of the arrest in London, or anything to do with the extradition, was challenged (which, in the event, it wasn't). Such a challenge was, as I have explained, made in the case of Thomas Barton. Had Andrews not been there and the legality of the arrest had been challenged, the extradition process might have failed.

The Toronto Mail had a reason why Andrews extended his trip to Toronto,

As stated exclusively in THE MAIL some days ago, he will be in charge of an officer from Scotland Yard. It appears that one of the members of the staff of Scotland Yard was anxious to take a trip to America and ascertain how they did things in Toronto.
David claims the reporter must have made this up

Hold on Mike, I did not say this. I said:

"it is hard to see how the statement that 'one of the members of the staff of Scotland Yard was anxious to take a trip to America and ascertain how they did things in Toronto' can be anything other than speculation. It is unlikely that there had been any further communication from Scotland Yard following the cable of 28 November saying that Barnett would 'leave tomorrow' other than, perhaps, telegraphic confirmation that he was on (or would be on) the Sarnia with Inspector Andrews. The Toronto Daily Mail was clearly unaware that the British authorities had been waiting for confirmation from the Governor-General of Canada that the Canadians would pay for the extradition and, moreover, that it was too late for a Canadian officer to collect Barnett."

You tell me: how could a reporter from the Mail in Toronto on 28/29 November 1888 - or the police in Toronto if you think that is the source - have possibly known that Andrews was anxious to take a trip to America to ascertain how the police did things in Toronto? But if that was true and it was, in fact, the real reason for the trip, or at least the reason that Andrews wanted it, then does that not destroy your argument that Andrews was there on Tumblety related business?

but his statement about ascertaining how they did things in Toronto does explain why he made this later comment to a Montreal Daily Star reporter,

"Regarding the police system the inspector said that in London they did not as yet have the alarm patrol wagon system. He thinks it is the most perfect institution that he ever saw. In London the number of men, 15,000, had to supply the lack of the alarm system. That number, however, he said, was not nearly sufficient for the city. Six thousand more men would be applied for next year.”

So, the reported reason, likely from Stark, was not to have Andrews in court just in case they needed him to testify, but for Andrews to see how they do business.

You are now destroying your entire argument. If that's the reason he wanted to go to Toronto, i.e. to inspect the police systems in Toronto, it had nothing to do with Tumblety!

And it is not incompatible with my argument. In order to be able to testify at the committal hearing (if required) Andrews needed to spend a week in Toronto and I have no doubt that he would have been interested in how the Toronto police operated. It's just that I can't see how the Mail in Toronto could have been doing anything other than speculating in its report of 29 November 1888.

Regardless, Canada clearly paid the full £120

Not at any time in 1888 it didn't. In fact, the full cost of the trip was £128.5.6. It took some time, and a certain amount of chasing, for Canada to cough up but it did so eventually in March 1890.

and these reasons could easily have been the cover for Andrews coming to Toronto on Tumblety business

So you are seriously telling me that a cover story was designed to bring Andrews to Toronto, namely that he was escorting a prisoner for extradition, and then a second cover story was invented to cover the first cover story, namely that Andrews wanted to look at the Toronto police force's methods?

especially when this scenario was corroborated by a reporter receiving information at Montreal Police Central Office.

But you tell me that the reason for no official documentation about Andrews' trip on Tumblety related business was that it was all a big secret from the Canadians. Thus: "There is no physical evidence, such as an official Scotland Yard order. But, should we really expect this if Scotland Yard just made Canada pay for his relatively expensive trip on their business?" So why was Montreal Police Central Office in possession of information that Andrews was doing Tumblety work?

Keep in mind, Andrews had a reason to go to Toronto in the Tumblety case. Tumblety had a bank account in Toronto, frequented the city often in the 1880s, and was even there in January 1888, just before he left for England.

I can't see a reason in anything you have said for Andrews needing to go to Toronto but, in any case, the real problem is that there is no evidence for it.

Now, Andrews’ extending his trip to Toronto because of Francis Tumblety also cannot be confirmed conclusively.

Or confirmed in any way?

David claims that the information absent in the Montreal Herald article demonstrates the New York World reporter in Montreal AND the St. Louis Republic reporter also in Montreal simultaneously added unsubstantiated facts in order to make the reader believe Andrews came to North America for the Ripper murders

Not correct. You have misunderstood. I wasn't saying that reporters were adding any information as such. What I said was that:

"To other journalists, however, Andrews appeared to be secretive about the reason for his visit."

In other words, I was contrasting the fact that one report made no mention of Andrews appearing to be secretive.

That was the only point I was making in contrasting the different articles.

First, there was no New York World reporter and St. Louis Republic reporter in Montreal’s Central Office Police Station during the announcement. The respective lines in the World’s and Republic’s articles, ‘Special to the World’ and ‘Special to the Republic’ mean they received the same story over the wire from a partnering newspaper organization out of Montreal.

I want to make clear that when I refer to something like the "New York World reporter" I am not necessarily saying that the report was written by a journalist employed by the New York World. I am only referring to the person (who could be an editor) who actually wrote the report. That could be an agency reporter or a reporter from another newspaper. It's a just a shorthand phrase.

I found the Montreal Herald article in the December 21, 1888, edition, and it is not a stand-alone story with its own headline. It is under, ‘Local News’, which consists of two columns with thirty three one paragraph stories (most just a few sentences long); including the Inspector Andrews story.

I fail to see the significance of the location of the report in the newspaper, how long it is and whether it has its own headline. You are entering the territory of guesswork here.

So, instead of the World and the St. Louis Republic stories having information added by reporters with an agenda to connect Andrews with the Ripper murders, the Montreal Herald story is merely a condensed version of the larger story.

The problem with your theory is that the Montreal Herald contains the following sentence about the Met Police:

"They have arrested scores of suspected persons, but were forced to release them for want of sufficient evidence. The search is still kept up and will be until the culprit is captured."

I don't see this in the Evening World article. I also note that the Montreal Herald story refers to Andrews meeting "several members of the press". That being so, Mike, is it your case that there was only a single wire report about Andrews' appearance at Montreal Police HQ?

David argues that the World headline, ‘An English detective Coming Here In Search of Jack the Ripper’, is not supported by the contents of the article then quotes the very first paragraph, which states nothing about searching for the Ripper. The article did indeed discuss the title; David merely quoted the wrong statement in the body

It was announced at police headquarters today that Andrews has a commission in connection with two other Scotland Yard men to find the murderer in America.

So, the title actually is supported by the contents. David did quote this statement later, but for the purpose of claiming the reporter must have merged an earlier story about Inspector Jarvis and Shore, thereby demonstrating the untrustworthiness of this version of the story.

No, that was not the purpose of quoting that statement at all. In quoting that statement I said "It is obvious that no such thing was ever 'announced' otherwise this story would have been widely reported with some form of quote but such quote never appeared." How could such a thing possibly have been announced? That THREE Scotland Yard detectives had been commissioned to find the murderer in America. Seriously? You believe that?

I accept, however, that I could have worded this point better by either saying that the interview with Andrews did not support the headline or that the headline was not supported by any evidence (or quote). But this is a drafting point only which I will attempt to tidy up. It makes no difference to anything material. I repeat that it is obvious that there was never any announcement. Further, Andrews never said anything about hunting Tumblety – or the Whitechapel Murderer - in any version of any story.

He also claims - without evidence - that the reporter incorporated, “a man suspected of knowing considerable about the murders left England for this dis three weeks ago”.

What does "without evidence" mean here? The reporter clearly has incorporated such a statement in the report. It is there and you have quoted it (albeit with a typo)! Do you mean that I am saying without evidence that this refers to Tumblety's flight to England? I hardly think I need evidence for that. Surely it is obvious.

He also comments that stating this makes it seem like Andrews was chasing Tumblety, which we know could not have happened, further corroborating the untrustworthiness of the article.

No, I wasn't "further corroborating the untrustworthiness of the article" at all. I was explaining how the myth arose that Andrews was involved in hunting for Tumblety.

This ‘chasing’ problem is apparently supported by an earlier Chicago Daily Tribune article stating, “the fellow that Scotland Yard detectives followed to New York”. The problem with this challenge is Tumblety was indeed ‘chased’ by an English detective, although it was not Andrews,

If it was not Andrews, it has no relevance to my trilogy. Why are you mentioning it?

"... he was a typical English detective....and he says he wuz an English detective and he told me all about them Whitechapel murders, and how he came over to get the chap that did it." (New York World, December 4, 1888)[/I]

Since Tumblety arrived in New York only a day or two before this and he’s following Tumblety, once Scotland Yard found out Tumblety was in France, this particular English detective must have been sent; in a sense, chasing him across the Atlantic.

Again, this forms no part of my trilogy – it clearly wasn't Andrews – it's not even said to be a Scotland Yard detective – Palmer places on reliance on it - so I really have no comment about it.

Even though the detective was tailing Tumblety on December 3, by the time Andrews made it to Canada on December 9, Tumblety had vanished (Riordan shows evidence he was hiding in New York), and it is logical to assume the English detective with the red side whiskers cabled this to Scotland Yard.

It is ont logical at all because it seems to be based two unsupported and very questionable assumptions namely (1) that the English detective actually existed and (2) that he was from Scotland Yard.

When Andrews arrived and received his commission, one of his tasks was to find Tumblety.

What, in Toronto? I have to comment at this point that the above quoted statement seems to be made up, with no evidential basis.

The English detective in New York with red side whiskers tailing Tumblety could not have been Inspector Jarvis, since the detective stated he just came from England. Jarvis was already in the United States. In view of this, David’s claim that the Scotland Yard men assisting Andrews on the Ripper case is a merging of the Jarvis and Shore story is likely incorrect.

I don't see how you can possibly draw such a conclusion Mike. The newspaper report stated that Andrews had a commission in connection with two other Scotland Yard men. You have cited an article which only refers to a single English detective. There had been a number of recent stories in the press which referred to two Scotland Yard men (Jarvis and Shore) being in America hunting for Irish Nationalists (or similar). Plus one (Andrews) makes three. What has clearly happened, in my view, is that the story from Montreal on 20 December was basically saying that the three detectives were not hunting for Irish Nationalists but for Jack the Ripper. My interpretation has the correct number of detectives. Yours has only two in total so I can't see how your interpretation can possibly be correct.

The above corrections and clarifications demonstrates that the report out of Montreal stating Andrews’ commission was on the Ripper case is not littered with mistakes, and is actually filled with correct information.

Sorry, but I'm not seeing the "correct information" at all. I thought you were supporting Palmer's theory that Andrews was in Canada to do background research into Francis Tumblety. Where do I find it stated in any report from Montreal that Andrews was in Canada to do background research into Francis Tumblety?

Point 2: David suggests that the only reason why Andrews took a trip from Toronto to Niagara Falls was to visit the falls and do the tourist thing. This certainly may have been one of the reasons he took the trip, but a comment made by a reporter suggests he did indeed have a meeting in near the US Canadian border,

Then, again, there was his trip to Niagara. When he returned from there he carried a large bundle of papers and books. He said these were photographs. What he could want with an armful of photographs was more than his friends could understand. [Toronto Mail, December 20, 1888]

David mentions this statement, but glosses over it.

I don't think it is fair to say that I glossed over it. I said "So we are left with a trip to Niagara that the journalist had curiously omitted to mention in his report of 19 December and some speculation around what Andrews was doing (and carrying)". That is an important point. The Niagara trip was not mentioned in the first report in the Toronto Mail. Why not? I suggest because it was really not significant at all.

Further, the report about Niagara is all second hand and unsourced.

And let's look at that report in the Mail. "What he could want with an armful of photographs was more than his friends could understand". What "friends" did Andrews have in Toronto? Would Andrews have carried a large bundle of papers and books and said they were "photographs" if they were obviously books? Wouldn't that be a bit mad?

Andrews brought back much more material than one would generally bring back from a two day trip to Niagara Falls.

Come on Mike. What do you know about how much material one would have generally brought back from a trip to Niagara Falls in 1888? And you are relying on a newspaper reporter who is apparently not reporting anything he has seen himself. If Andrews actually brought a large bundle of papers and books back from Niagara, what is wrong with that and what could it possibly have to do with Tumblety?

Keep in mind; he still had to hand-carry this stuff across Canada on a train, then across the Atlantic. It seems a photograph and a pamphlet for tourists would have sufficed.

Come off it Mike. This is 100% pure speculation. Is this what it boils down to? Speculating on the assumed contents of Walter Andrews' hand luggage? How does it even get us close to Tumblety?

Although, David’s claim that Andrews came to Toronto merely for the Barnett case is still viable when we evaluate the available evidence, I will argue that he came to Toronto for the politically embarrassing Tumblety mission (at least in part) is just as viable.

But where is the actual evidence to support it? And what about the timing point? Tumblety had already fled from justice to New York on a non-extraditable offence long before Andrews arrived in Canada so what could the inspector have ever achieved in a week in Toronto?

CONCLUSION

So, Mike, my scepticism that you were going to come up with "a clear cut correction of any significance to something in my trilogy" (#312) has proved well founded. To be honest, I have no idea which of the points you have raised is the "correction" and which one is the "clarification". The best you have done is raised a minor point of drafting in respect of one of the newspaper reports which can be easily tided up and which has no effect whatsoever on any of the arguments or conclusions. I'm bound to say that the serious errors are yours, as I have pointed out above, especially your interpretation of the warrant and a misunderstanding of how the indemnity worked.

[David Orsam]

Mike & Jonathan,

I just want to say thanks to both for engaging with me in a serious way about this subject.

I hope you will both feel I have responded appropriately but certainly in Mike's case that was a long post and a long response so if you think I have omitted to respond to any point of significance please do let me know

[David Orsam]

David,

I have only one thought to add.
I am reminded of Shakespeare. William.
I am reminded of The Merchant of Venice.
I am reminded of Shylock.
I am reminded of the need for the "pound of flesh"
I am also reminded of the response. .that you may have your pound of flesh..but not one drop of blood must you spill whilst acquiring it.
Simon offered you your pound of flesh on his terms..not yours. You can't get it without spilling a drop of blood..In other words..In a pm. You turned it down. So Shylock does not get his pound of flesh he publically craves.

You end up barking to the moon..because goading Simon didn't work. You failed totally on your attempt to cajole, goad and insinuate a response. Your methodology is clearly therefore a failure.

revenge is a dish best served cold David. You present it boiling hot.

I didn't accept Simon's "offer" because I didn't believe it was genuine, had no wish in any event to become embroiled in any lengthy, time consuming, private discussions with him and believe that any issues should be aired in public in this thread. That's the whole purpose of joining this internet message forum.

I have no desire to "goad" him. He has posted in this thread of his own free will. I can't really work out why. He seems to challenge my trilogy and I've been trying to encourage him to identify the issues between us. If you don't see it that way I can do nothing about it.

As for the theory that anything I have done is about "revenge", that is, I have to say, absolutely 100% barking mad. Certainly, if you are referring to Tom's crazy theory that a single post to me from Simon in February set me off on a course of petty vindictiveness so huge that all the research I have carried out and the time spent writing my trilogy and defending it in this thread is about him, this is so bizarre that I don't quite know what to say in response. Naturally, if you have any evidence of this then please feel free to post it.

[David Orsam]

I never questioned that there was original research in your article. I stated I'm unclear specifically what the original research was, outside of the reams of stuff on Barnett.

I fail to see the difference between saying you are unclear on what the original research is in my article and questioning whether there is original research in my article. The "reams of stuff on Barnett" which, I see, is your new obsession, only appears in one of the three articles in the trilogy. The point of it, incidentally, was to demonstrate that Barnett was a serious criminal so as to emphasise the importance of the success of his extradition to the police in both Toronto and London.

Anyway, I have explained to you what at least some of the original research in my article comprises of, so I trust you are unclear no longer.

[David Orsam]

As for my harping on 'proof'. I don't normally expect such a thing unless a writer starts his piece by stating he will completely demolish an opposing theory. When I read that, then yes, I expect some sort of proof. Otherwise, you're simply making a counter-argument. And there's nothing wrong with a counter-argument. We all make them. But don't sell me an apple and hand me an orange, knowwhatI'msayin'?

At the start of "England Sends Her Spies", I say:

"Upon examination, however, as we shall see, such a notion [i.e. the infiltration of a British detective to carry out Parnell work for the Times] is revealed to be, to use Simon D. Wood's words (when describing Stephen Knight's book), 'elaborate balderdash', alternatively pure, utter and unmitigated nonsense - a complete fantasy invented or perpetuated by excitable and uninformed American journalists - and that the British detective who travelled to America to chase and locate Thomas Barton did just that and nothing more. It will be seen that modern writers have been suckered by a 127 year old fabrication."

Job done.

At the start of "The Third Man", I say:

"The purpose of this article is to challenge the accepted notion that Andrews had an ulterior motive in making the journey to Canada. We will see that he went to across the Atlantic for the very reason he was supposed to have done."

Job done.

At the start of "The Thomas Barton Affair", I say:

"Even if Labouchere was, in his own mind, 'certain' of the truth of his allegations, it does not mean that they were correct. We will see in this final article in the trilogy that they were, of course, false."

Job done.

Now those are my exact words Tom. Those are the facts. I never used the word "demolish" at any time in any of my articles.

Essentially, I delivered exactly what I promised in the trilogy. I sold you an apple and I gave you an apple.

[David Orsam]

Tom,

You have spoken a lot about proof but proof can only be derived from a set of facts. The facts – the undisputed facts – in the matter of the Labouchere allegations are as follows:

FACT: The Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police stated that Inspector Jarvis did not go to Colorado.

FACT: The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police stated that Inspector Jarvis did not go to Colorado.

FACT: The Home Secretary stated that Inspector Jarvis did not go to Colorado.

FACT: Inspector Jarvis stated through his solicitors that he did not go to Colorado.

FACT: Henry Labouchere – the only known person ever to have alleged that Inspector Jarvis went to Colorado – unconditionally retracted the allegation he made that Inspector Jarvis went to Colorado.

FACT: There is not one iota of evidence that Inspector Jarvis ever went to Colorado.

The sensible, rational and, indeed, only interpretation of these facts is that Inspector Jarvis did not go to Colorado. Any interpretation of the above facts which concludes that Inspector Jarvis went to Colorado, or even that he might have gone to Colorado, is a twisted one that has no relationship at all with the facts. It simply has to be one that has been twisted to suit a pre-existing hypothesis.

(Colorado in the above can be replaced with Kansas City and the conclusion is exactly the same.)

On the facts, it is case closed.

p.s. to the above might be added:

FACT: Inspector Jarvis went to America in late November 1888 with the original warrants of arrest and information for Thomas Barton.

FACT: Inspector Jarvis was understood by the Home Secretary in late 1888 to be in Canada engaged in endeavouring to chase Thomas Barton.

[mklhawley]

Mike & Jonathan,

I just want to say thanks to both for engaging with me in a serious way about this subject.

I hope you will both feel I have responded appropriately but certainly in Mike's case that was a long post and a long response so if you think I have omitted to respond to any point of significance please do let me know

Very appropriate, David. Now, you can say your entire article has been scrutinized.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Phil Carter]

I didn't accept Simon's "offer" because I didn't believe it was genuine, had no wish in any event to become embroiled in any lengthy, time consuming, private discussions with him and believe that any issues should be aired in public in this thread. That's the whole purpose of joining this internet message forum.

I have no desire to "goad" him. He has posted in this thread of his own free will. I can't really work out why. He seems to challenge my trilogy and I've been trying to encourage him to identify the issues between us. If you don't see it that way I can do nothing about it.

As for the theory that anything I have done is about "revenge", that is, I have to say, absolutely 100% barking mad. Certainly, if you are referring to Tom's crazy theory that a single post to me from Simon in February set me off on a course of petty vindictiveness so huge that all the research I have carried out and the time spent writing my trilogy and defending it in this thread is about him, this is so bizarre that I don't quite know what to say in response. Naturally, if you have any evidence of this then please feel free to post it.

David,

Impression has been given. You yourself have shown. .very clearly. .A lot of the things you deny.
Arrogance, goading, is just a part of it.
To your mind..which accepts your methodology in communication and discussion. .you see no wrong. Repeatedly boastful..It goes on and on and on. And Simon pulled away from public argument due to him deeming your responses as rude.
I happen to see his point.
If you don't . Fine.carry on.
I have no ego so don't care. You defend yourself to the nth degree. .because you see no wrong.
Yes. A pound of flesh syndrome was evident. Imho


Phil

[David Orsam]

And Simon pulled away from public argument due to him deeming your responses as rude.
I happen to see his point.

Phil,

Ignoring the silly insults I first need to correct you on a matter of fact. It is not correct to say that Simon "pulled way from public argument" because he deemed my responses to be rude, or more specifically because he found my "sneering, goading tone" offensive (see #105). He continued to argue with me long after this (see e.g. #152). What actually happened is that he refused to answer any of my questions.

Secondly, I am forced to repeat an obvious point of logic to you in the form of a question. Why would Simon agree to answer my questions via PM or email if he was offended by my "sneering, goading tone" yet not do so in public in this thread? I did, of course, already ask you this (#357) but you did not answer so there is not much more I can do.

If you have any issues on any points in my trilogy, Phil, I will, of course, be happy to discuss with you.

[Phil Carter]

Sorry David,

You sell perfection. I see imperfection. You do not. I will just pass.

Phil

[David Orsam]

Sorry David,

You sell perfection. I see imperfection. You do not. I will just pass.

Phil,

You are starting to sound like Tom Wescott, attributing things to me which I have never claimed. When have I ever said I sell perfection? When have I ever said I do not see imperfection? It is certainly true that I have been forced to deny a lot of nonsense that has been spouted about me in this thread but if the nonsense had not been spouted then I would not have had to deny it.

[Tom_Wescott]

Phil,

You are starting to sound like Tom Wescott

David, I take back what I said about your insult-slinging. Here Phil is giving you a sound lashing and your response to that is to pay him this fantastic compliment. Very mature and good-natured of you.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[David Orsam]

David, I take back what I said about your insult-slinging. Here Phil is giving you a sound lashing and your response to that is to pay him this fantastic compliment. Very mature and good-natured of you.

No problem Tom. I do love the way you write. One of my favourite passages of yours comes from your Amazon review of "Deconstructing Jack" by Simon Daryl Wood - you know, that book you haven't finished reading yet - in which you say:

"But if something in the book resonates with you and sparks your curiosity, go investigate it for yourself. Double-check the facts."

And hey, that's exactly what I did. Great advice Tom.

[Jonathan H]

No worries, David.

By 'data' I just meant material/information/sources.

I would sum up my p.o.v. like this.

There are no official documents that have survived--or ever existed?--that prove Andrews was investigating Parnell and/or Tumblety (whereas there are that he was escorting a prisoner back to Canada). There are also newspaper accounts of Andrews doing one or the other.

R. J. Palmer, and then yourself, have done a convincing job of debunking the Parnell theory based on interpreting other surviving primary sources that, when put together, strongly argue against Scotland Yard so brazenly--and hamfistedly--intefering in the Parnell inquiry. That the newspapers (and Liberals) claiming this was so were engaged in crude and bombastic propaganda/muckraking on behalf of Irish-Catholic independence.

You have also argued, very cogently and with formidable detail, that the tabloid claims of Andrews supposedly investigating--pursuing?--the American quack to North America are of the same veracity, e.g. wothless. Tabloid tall tales extrapolated from Andrews simpy escorting a Canadian back to that jurisdiction.

I think that is a perfectly (whoops, sorry Phil) reasonable interpretation of limited and contradictory data. It may well be correct. Other sources may turn up which shows that it is correct.

I dissent from it, nevertheless, because of an other sources suggests to me that Andrews was doing a background check on Tumblety, with plausible deniability that he was doing any such thing (in fact he may have denied it directly to a reporter).

You write that Andrews was not known by the press and public to be hunting the Ripper.

Well, it was not classified.

Anderson could not be sure that it would not be learned.

Plus arguably, the newspapers on both sides of the Atlantic that claimed he was searching for the Ripper abroad had learned of his involvement in the Whitechapel murders and put two and two together. Walter Dew confirmed this in his memoirs. Can memoirs be mistaken? All the time, and selfservingly so. But I think not so here, as it is not an extraordinary claim by Dew (like hey, did you know the Prince of Wales was invlved in hunting Jack with me?) but a quite mundane one. How could he get it wrong?

The andrews trip suggests Dew was not wrong, but that tabloids exaggerated its character.

Guy Logan is arguably a very diabolical source. The merest tip of a massive iceberg, one involving the propagation of disinfiormation about the real Ripper: Montague John Druitt.

You could argue then if that is true, well then all bets are off, and nothing can be trusted about his account--which may simply come from the same 1888/9 tabloids anyhow.

Fair enough.

I counter that textual evidence suggests that Logan's source was actually George Sims, and his source was Melville Macnaghten. The background check on Tumblety by Andrews has been exaggerated into hot pursuit, as it was in 1888, and that Mary Kelly was known to be at the time the final murder. This is a persistent meme of Mac's--until his memoris where he debunked it.

Another part of his m.o. is that he takes an historical event and reshapes it depending on his audience. Usually into a crowd-peasing 'shilling shocker'. I quite understand if you respond: so what? Macnaghten is thus a manipulative source, if your central thesis is correct about him, who, eh, cannot be trusted--is therefore not remotely reliable, let alone at third hand.

I still think it is a too big a coincidence that one of the top detectives on Whitechapel was sent to Canada , one of the known and recent haunts of the leading police suspect to be the fiend, at least until the McKenzie murder.