The 'Suckered!' Trilogy

[David Orsam]

Thank you very much Jeff, greatly appreciated.

[mklhawley]

Thank you for the third time Jonathan, your kind comments throughout this thread have been much appreciated.

You also provide me with the welcome opportunity of making the additional point that if Andrews had been researching Tumblety during his week in Toronto, in the same way that Jarvis later researched Cream, then it simply would not have been possible for this to have been kept secret bearing in mind that Andrews would have had to openly speak to ordinary residents of Toronto about Tumblety, so that his mission would, by definition, have become public knowledge. Yet, there is not a single newspaper report of Andrews having questioned anyone at all about Tumblety which is extraordinary if this is what he had been doing. The evidence from the Home Office files reveals clearly and unequivocally, to my eye at least, that the fact that Andrews happened to spend a week in one of the many cities in North America that Tumblety had visited in his life was nothing more than pure coincidence. Moreover, if there is a single piece of evidence, or even persuasive argument, that Andrews was doing anything at all relating to Tumblety in Toronto then I must have missed it when I read Mr Palmer's trilogy.

Hi David,

Outstanding research! Honestly. When Roger wrote his paper, he was coming from the angle of countering the Parnell conspiracy argument, and it was almost assumed one of the prevailing CONTEMPORARY theories was correct. The fact that both theories were going around while Andrews was in Canada tends to reinforce this, especially since Scotland Yard was tight lipped (per Donald Rumbelow). You come from the angle that neither are correct base upon some solid evidence. Of course I'm also a Palmer fan, but it's up to us to explain why. I love it!

My next novel was just published, so I have some time on my hands. Time to read your articles with a fine-toothed comb!

Sincerely,

Mike

[David Orsam]

Thank you Mike. I wasn't sure how people would react but everyone has been very generous with praise so far, on and off the board. Mind you, I haven't yet heard from the advocates of the Parnell conspiracy theory so I have no idea what the reaction is from that quarter.

Good luck with the novel!

[Stewart P Evans]

David...

David, you really are doing some excellent work.

[mklhawley]

Hi David,

Question, in your article, you stated the following statement was in both the December 21 and the December 22 issues of THe Montreal Herald. Is this true, or is this a mistake? - Mike

'INSPECTOR Andrews of the Scotland Yard detective force, London, who brought over the celebrated Gideon Barnett, was in the city yesterday on his return to England. At the Central Station, which he visited yesterday morning he met several members of the press, and to their inquiries about the Whitechapel murders, said that so far the force was at sea, having no clue to work upon. 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. Twenty-three detectives, two clerks and an inspector are specially detailed for the Whitechapel affair, and they have received as many as 6,000 letters from police officers and others trying to give clues to the fiend.'

[David Orsam]

Stewart - Thank you very much.

Mike - Well spotted, the correct date of that report in the Montreal Herald is 21 December 1888 (so that 'yesterday' correctly refers to 20 December) and I have amended the 'Third Man' article accordingly.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi David,

I'm in the middle of reading the Suckered! trilogy now. A couple of quick observations. First, good work on all the new material. Clearly, a lot of research and thought went into this piece. High, very high marks for that.

Second observation is that all this hard work might have benefited from a more gracious attitude towards Simon Wood and Wolf Vanderlinden. They also put a lot of time and work into their publications, so for you to come along later and call their work 'nonsense' and 'garbage' because in 2015 you have new material and resources is unfair and undermines your own work, because many of us readers enjoyed Wolf and/or Simon's stuff on Andrews and so after your first couple of paragraphs insulting them, we're reading the rest of your stuff with our arms crossed going 'Oh yeah, buddy? You'd better bring the goods then'.
But I've told you on here and in private e-mail that I think you're one helluva researcher and 'Suckered!' certainly backs that up. I'll have more comments and questions later, but here's a couple for now:

Andrews liked his milk and whisky. Do Brits drink whisky with milk? And it seems Roland Barnett filed bankruptcy two years in a row. Was that possible then?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Oh boy

I'm getting towards the end of part 2 and seeing that RJ Palmer receives no quarter either!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[David Orsam]

Hi Tom,

Thanks for the compliments. As for the rest….

I did not call Simon Wood's or Wolf Vanderlinden's work 'garbage'. I said of the (clearly false) Boston Sunday Globe report of 23 December 1888 that 'the entire thing should be consigned to the garbage'.

I did, however, say that the notion put forward by Messrs Wood and Vanderlinden that Inspector Jarvis was sent to America as part of a high level conspiracy by which a contrived pursuit of a fugitive offender was used as cover to infiltrate a British detective onto American soil in order to perform covert and illegal investigative work on behalf of The Times newspaper was 'pure and unmitigated nonsense'. I believe I am perfectly entitled to describe such an argument as nonsense if that is what I genuinely believe it to be, regardless of how much time and work they may or may not have put into formulating it. I did not have access to any material that was unavailable to Simon Wood, Wolf Vanderlinden or anyone else. When I read their articles, without even having checked against any documents, I could see on the face of it that some claims were nonsense, such as Simon Wood's statement that Labouchere wouldn't have printed his allegations about Jarvis if he wasn't certain they were true. Having subsequently done the research, my suspicions were entirely justified.

I would add that I have nothing personal against any of the three writers I refer to in the trilogy and Mr Vanderlinden has been nothing but polite, informative and helpful to me in the brief exchanges I have had with him on these boards while I have never communicated with Mr Palmer. I have no doubt that both gentlemen have broad shoulders and can take legitimate criticism or will defend themselves if they feel any criticism is not legitimate. Mr Wood, it has to be said, has been unnecessarily rude to me on this forum but that is up to him if it is how he wants to behave and it did not affect my interpretations of his article or of his book (the latter of which I paid my money for!).

If I read and believe that something is nonsense then I will certainly say so and am sure that I not only have the right to do this but an obligation too. Just as anyone is entitled/obliged to describe anything I have said as nonsense if I write nonsense. I don't think that the fact that you happened to enjoy Wood's or Vanderlinden's work is at all relevant and, for example, I greatly enjoyed Stephen Knight's book back in the day but have no problem with Wood's description of it as 'elaborate balderdash' and, indeed, if he can describe Knight's theory as such then surely I can do the same about his theory, if I can justify it, which I believe I have done.

I honestly don't mind if you read my trilogy with your arms crossed talking to yourself (or to me). I think I have 'delivered the goods' but it's not really for me to say so.

I happen to believe that history has been seriously distorted in some of the works I have read and have attempted to correct the historical record.

As for your questions, I am sure Inspector Andrews could drink whatever he wanted! I also noted the fact that Barnett seemed to file for bankruptcy very frequently but am no expert in nineteenth century bankruptcy law. I was only going by newspaper reports, and indicated my uncertainty by saying 'it looks like he was discharged but was then made bankrupt again' and explained why I, but it's not a material point in the story so didn't bother to investigate further.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi David,

No worries and far be it from me to tell you what to post on your own blog! I'm sure you knew when you were writing those parts about that it would evoke comment and perhaps some measure of controversy, so I'm sure my mild comments hardly surprise you. But in the off chance you weren't aware of how it came off to the reader, I thought I'd share that, particularly if you plan to publish 'Suckered!' in any medium other than a blog in the future. We write for the reader, and as a reader of your work I thought I'd share that I was distracted from your research by the mean-spirited comments. That's all. Also, the part on Barnett was WAAAY long and I had to do a lot of skimming.

I don't have a horse in the whole Andrews thing and in fact have struggled to understand it over years. But I recall how it started out innocently enough as being theorised that Andrews went off to the North to investigate Tumblety. Then writers such as Wolf and RJ came along with a lot of new findings and the focus started to turn more away from Tumblety. Then a few years later Simon Wood got in the mix with the well-received 'Smoke & Mirrors'. Now Tumblety doesn't even figure into the Andrews debate and it's all about Parnell! It's a fascinating subject that seems to grow with each new researcher, and surely it's to be expected that as new writers find the work and get intrigued and look for themselves that new findings will be made and these findings will add to the bank of knowledge and some ideas will be proved wrong and some proved right and others left in that gray area.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mklhawley]

Hi Tom,

A little clarification, Roger's articles were published AFTER 'Smoke and Mirrors'. I recall you posting after Roger's articles saying 'Smoke and Mirrors' had originally convinced you, but Roger's articles put you back on the fence.

It's amazing I recalled your post!

Mike

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Tom,

A little clarification, Roger's articles were published AFTER 'Smoke and Mirrors'. I recall you posting after Roger's articles saying 'Smoke and Mirrors' had originally convinced you, but Roger's articles put you back on the fence.

It's amazing I recalled your post!

Mike

I think you might have that backwards, Mike.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[David Orsam]

as a reader of your work I thought I'd share that I was distracted from your research by the mean-spirited comments. That's all.

It's no problem Tom, I publish the work so I invite and accept any criticism. But I will always respond to defend my work where I think appropriate, with all the tools at my disposal. And in this case what happened is that you badly misunderstood my words (possibly because you did not read the second article properly but skimmed it, as you have admitted) clearly thinking - and alleging - that I had described Wood's and Vanderlinden's work as 'garbage' when I had done no such thing. I didn't see an apology in your response but no doubt you intended to make one. Some people might have regarded your own comments as mean-spirited, but, rest assured, not me.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi David. Steady on! You say you invite criticism, but that's not the vibe you're sending out. I said I skimmed a lot of the stuff on Barnett, which was really just raw data. And I haven't finished part 2 yet, nor started part 3. If you're comfortable with how you portrayed Simon, Wolf, and their work, then who am I to argue, as long as you deliver on your promise to prove them wrong.

Some people might have regarded your own comments as mean-spirited, but, rest assured, not me.

My comments on this thread? I don't see how anyone could. I'm arguably one of your biggest 'fans'.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mklhawley]

Tom!

Smoke and Mirrors was in Rip 106, September 2009, while Rogers three articles were in 2010! Would you like me to find your post?

Mike