The 'Suckered!' Trilogy

[David Orsam]

Phil - I hear what you say but I have my own writing and debating style which I like and I will stick to. This is not a personality contest and I'm sure that the truth - or at least the better arguments - will win out in the end.

[Tom_Wescott]

No Tom, there was a specific allegation that on a single day (that was never accurately identified because it was said to be either the 20th or the 25th of December) Jarvis was in Del Norte. So, on your view, the government would have had to waste taxpayers money trying to work out exactly what Jarvis was doing and where he was on both of those single days. There was really no need to do this because the Home Secretary stated clearly that Jarvis had never been to Del Norte.

But how did the Home Secretary know this? Didn't he just ask?

I have no idea why you refer to Labouchere's excuse that his sources were mistaken as unconvincing. The reason the 'conclusive evidence' was never presented was because it never existed. His talk of having his costs paid by Jarvis (or his backers) was nothing more than bluster. It was all just a lot of nonsense Tom.

Then why did he make the claims? Simon accuses certain members of the police of colluding with the Times, and he provides motives. You accuse Labouchere of lying and defamation to the point he was being sued. So what was his motivation?

Regarding the American press. The Ripper was a big story in the states, but not so much Parnell. So why did so many reporters make up stories or put words in Andrews' mouth?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Phil Carter]

Have you ever come across the tale of the political spin doctor who was quick to disclose to the world, through presentation and a portion of bring adamantly correct in all conclusions that others before him were actually the spin doctors?

I have. On many occasions. Both in national politics and even localised discussion. History is full of it. And behind every spin doctor lies a willing and silent backing.

Some would even call it adhesive propaganda. Sticks easily.

My personal opinion on this matter..not that it matters to some in the slightest..is that I like to think I read carefully before commenting. Sometimes I read things more than once in order to find a better meaning of the written piece. There is often much written between the lines.

David..your research is fascinating. Written in a style which impresses. And you are to be congratulated on the time, effort and product.

However. Although backing oneself to a certain degree is to be applauded, I opine that the use of "j'accuse" is over done. I could mention two or three well known authors of historical political happenings and behaviour whose reputations as researchers would also get torn to shreds if I mentioned their outstanding work and conclusions. Their books have been discussed on these boards. Neither directly related to JtR but directly relating to the machinations of both the politics and the involvement of Special Branch of the Victoria era.

This is just a personal opinion. It means nothing in the scheme of things. .There is no malice aforethought. No quasi behind the scenes reasoning..and no element of backing any particular horse of favouritism either.

I have the distinct feeling that because of the underlining taste of propaganda on my palate...my comments will not be welcomed with gusto. So be it. However.the impression..and I reiterate that. .The impression I am left with is that the force used in attacking is revealing..and does not further your presentation. IMHO. I will make no further comment to any reply you may or may not make..or anyone else for that matter..as I am just stating a reviewed opinion of your piece. You probably don't like it. But I only write of the picture I see painted before me. I hope that you can see it is written respectfully.



Phil

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

Be assured. If I ever need patronising I'll hire a professional.

Oh yes, I read your trilogy, and fascinating it was.

"Sir Robert Anderson (who provided the Home Secretary's briefing note) evidently understood the question to be about Local Inspector Edward Shaw."

As you took nit-picking delight in pulling me up on partially misquoting Gilbert and Sullivan I will merely take this moment to mention that Robert Anderson was not knighted until 1901.

But no matter. Back to the plot.

Why would Robert Anderson believe a V Division Local Inspector had been accused of travelling to America on behalf of The Times?

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

Simon - if you would also be happy to answer a few questions from me, or clarify some sticking points that I have, please let me know because I do have quite a few for you.

Just repeating this for Simon Wood in case he missed it first time round.

[David Orsam]

It can be hard to prove a negative. But when someone is saying that you were somewhere for weeks or months at a time where you were not, that should be extremely easy to prove, and you wouldn't need a court of law to prove it. Labouchere's pathetic excuse that his sources were 'mistaken' is not at all convincing in light of his earlier appeal that Jarvis' backers should be willing to pay his losses when Labouchere won and his claims of conclusive evidence that unfortunately was never presented.

No Tom, there was a specific allegation that on a single day (that was never accurately identified because it was said to be either the 20th or the 25th of December) Jarvis was in Del Norte. So, on your view, the government would have had to waste taxpayers money trying to work out exactly what Jarvis was doing and where he was on both of those single days. There was really no need to do this because the Home Secretary stated clearly that Jarvis had never been to Del Norte.

I have no idea why you refer to Labouchere's excuse that his sources were mistaken as unconvincing. The reason the 'conclusive evidence' was never presented was because it never existed. His talk of having his costs paid by Jarvis (or his backers) was nothing more than bluster. It was all just a lot of nonsense Tom.

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

"The Home Secretary was never asked about Superintendent Shore."

Hansard, 11th March 1890—

Home Secretary—“Jarvis and Shaw are inspectors in the Metropolitan Police Force. It is not the fact that they were employed at any time, directly or indirectly, by or for The Times, in procuring evidence or the attendance of any witnesses. The answer to my Hon. Friend’s remaining questions is in the negative.”

Who was Inspector Shaw, apparently falsely referenced as being in America on behalf of The Times in December 1888?

Did you actually read my trilogy Simon? I have answered all that.

The quote that you produced from the Home Secretary confirms that he was not referring to Superintendent Shaw because he said that Shaw was an inspector in the Metropolitan Police Force. Without wishing to labour the point, Shore was a superintendent so the Home Secretary could not possibly have been speaking about him. As I explained in 'The Thomas Barton Affair', Sir Robert Anderson (who provided the Home Secretary's briefing note) evidently understood the question to be about Local Inspector Edward Shaw.

[Tom_Wescott]

It's not that easy to prove a negative Tom. But, in the end, the matter was proved. In the face of the evidence collected for the court case, Labouchere accepted that he was mistaken.

It can be hard to prove a negative. But when someone is saying that you were somewhere for weeks or months at a time where you were not, that should be extremely easy to prove, and you wouldn't need a court of law to prove it. Labouchere's pathetic excuse that his sources were 'mistaken' is not at all convincing in light of his earlier appeal that Jarvis' backers should be willing to pay his losses when Labouchere won and his claims of conclusive evidence that unfortunately was never presented.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[David Orsam]

Hi David, let's not get into semantics. An MP there is like a senator here, and I would call that an official.

Well, Tom, having said you don't want to get into semantics you then do exactly that by saying 'I would call that an official'. Labouchere had no official position whatsoever. I have to insist that it is just not legitimate to dignify Labouchere's allegations by saying they were made by an 'official person' as you did.

He certainly wasn't a nameless penny-a-liner, and he was someone who had something to lose by making false and serious allegations.

That's right, which is why he settled the libel action against him rather then be torn to shreds in the witness box in public.

Allegations that shouldn't have been terribly difficult to prove false.

That is quite wrong. Just think about the difficulties of having to prove a negative. It needs evidence and the only appropriate forum is a court of law. The Home Secretary and Commissioner stated as clear as it was possible to state that Jarvis had never been in Del Norte (or any of the other places alleged). It was up to Labouchere (or anyone else) to prove that he had been, which never happened. The government was not throwing empty buckets. They were responding in the appropriate fashion to ridiculous allegations over which they were under no obligation to waste any taxpayers money by spending any more time on them than was absolutely necessary.

If this were just a battle of the newspapers, that'd be different. After all, both you and Simon seem to agree that these men weren't Ripper hunting, and yet there's press reports saying they were. If all those are false, then it's possible the reports saying they were Parnell hunting might be just as false. It almost cancels itself out, in other words. But those Matthews/Labouchere transcripts are intriguing, and the series of events with Anderson writing anonymous letters and Monro mysteriously resigning, etc. And we're talking about not one, not two, but three inspectors in the mix.

I can't see how Anderson writing anonymous letters to the Times, goading on Labouchere to substantiate or withdraw his allegations can lead to any conclusion other than that Anderson wanted to defend his department in public from the criticisms in a way which he could not do in his official capacity. By referring to 'Monro mysteriously resigning' you fall into the trap of thinking that his resignation had anything to do with the Jarvis allegations, for which there is not an iota of evidence, and it clearly had nothing to do with that at all.

There's obviously nothing absolutely conclusive we can point at, or else there'd be no present debate. But you say there's no grounds for the Wolf & Simon (the 'conspiracy theorists) to conclude any of these men were in the states spying for the Times/Police. How can you say that with equal certainty?

That's an easy one. I can say there are no grounds because there are no grounds. If there are any grounds, where are they?

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

"The Home Secretary was never asked about Superintendent Shore."

Hansard, 11th March 1890—

Home Secretary—“Jarvis and Shaw are inspectors in the Metropolitan Police Force. It is not the fact that they were employed at any time, directly or indirectly, by or for The Times, in procuring evidence or the attendance of any witnesses. The answer to my Hon. Friend’s remaining questions is in the negative.”

Who was Inspector Shaw, apparently falsely referenced as being in America on behalf of The Times in December 1888?

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

Why not just prove the matter?

It's not that easy to prove a negative Tom. But, in the end, the matter was proved. In the face of the evidence collected for the court case, Labouchere accepted that he was mistaken.

[Tom_Wescott]

In which case I would have to disagree with you very strongly that he can in any way be described as an 'official person'. He was member of parliament yes, but his knowledge was always said to come from a friend in the United States and the knowledge of any other M.P.s backing him up came from him (i.e. Labouchere). Even putting aside the source of his knowledge, he just wasn't an 'official' in any accepted use of the word.

Hi David, let's not get into semantics. An MP there is like a senator here, and I would call that an official. He certainly wasn't a nameless penny-a-liner, and he was someone who had something to lose by making false and serious allegations. Allegations that shouldn't have been terribly difficult to prove false. If this were just a battle of the newspapers, that'd be different. After all, both you and Simon seem to agree that these men weren't Ripper hunting, and yet there's press reports saying they were. If all those are false, then it's possible the reports saying they were Parnell hunting might be just as false. It almost cancels itself out, in other words. But those Matthews/Labouchere transcripts are intriguing, and the series of events with Anderson writing anonymous letters and Monro mysteriously resigning, etc. And we're talking about not one, not two, but three inspectors in the mix.

There's obviously nothing absolutely conclusive we can point at, or else there'd be no present debate. But you say there's no grounds for the Wolf & Simon (the 'conspiracy theorists) to conclude any of these men were in the states spying for the Times/Police. How can you say that with equal certainty?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Simon Wood]

Hi Tom,

I hope I did not give the impression in my book that Jarvis's American trip specifically regarding the apprehension of Barton was anything less than legitimate.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

But at the same time it's interesting to note that all Matthews, Monro, Anderson and Jarvis could offer to counter Labouchere's accusations was a litany of indignant denial.

What a remarkable statement! Labouchere spouts some utter nonsense about Inspector Jarvis and when Matthews, Monro, Anderson and Jarvis all deny it, you say this fact is "interesting". Amazing. We are going back 125 years here to the insane mindset of Henry Labouchere - and where did that get him? A humiliating apology in his own journal and in the Times and a financial payment to Jarvis, that's where!

Not one of them could state as a definitely ascertained fact that on such and such a date in December 1888 Inspector Jarvis could not have been in Kansas, Denver or Del Norte because a report he filed definitively placed him elsewhere.

Jarvis wasn't filing reports on a daily basis Simon. The vague allegation was that he was in Del Norte on 20 OR 25 December - Labouchere couldn't even work out which one it was. The response was that Jarvis had NEVER been in Del Norte (or any of the other places alleged) so that was a complete answer to the allegation. At least for any normal person who wasn't going to be forced into a humiliating written apology.

Likewise with Shore. Surely Scotland Yard could have rustled up a story of him being involved in, say, the London arrest of cat burglar Fred Blenkinsop on Christmas Eve.

A complete non-point. The allegation was that an inspector (note the rank) called 'Shaw' was in the US at the time. The Home Secretary was never asked about Superintendent Shore.

Or perhaps, being honourable gentlemen, bluff and bluster were preferable to outright lies.

No Simon, they went for complete denial - a statement that the allegations were totally false - which for most people who don't see conspiracies around every corner is usually good enough.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Simon, that was my thought as well. There were accusations coming from America as well as London regarding Jarvis, Andrews and Shore. I seriously doubt all the accusations were accurate, but there's an awful lot of smoke there and Monro and his boys seem to be trying to put it out with empty buckets. Why not just prove the matter? It should have been easy enough instead of strongarming Labouchere.

Regarding Thomas Barton, David has proved (to my satisfaction, at least) that trip regarding him was legit. But why does that rule out other agendas?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott