The 'Suckered!' Trilogy

[David Orsam]

This is 1888, but before the arrest of Tumblety - Abberline's communications with the Bremen police about "Mary" the hairdresser.

Hi Hunter, if these communications were in writing then that supports the point I have been making that any enquiries into Tumblety's background could have been done by cable or post and that there was no need for an officer to go to Canada. I probably could have expressed it better but the research I was referring to (and I think that Mike was referring to) was research being done by an officer in person in a foreign country. That type of research was - unless someone can come up with a prior example - unprecedented as at November 1888.

[mklhawley]

You have amused me with your response on this "side issue". In particular, I note with amusement your concession - clearly in response to the Anderson briefing note - that Andrews might never have gone to New York at all, as if this still fits in with your theory. Moreover, that you don't even believe he ever went to New York City "since there was no reason to". So what are we supposed to make of your reliance on the report of the New York Correspondent of the Daily Telegraph?

David, I can tell you work for lawyers, using their tricks of the trade; in this case the strawman argument. My lawyer friend always tells me the goal is not the truth, but to win for your client. It's the jury's job (or the judge) to glean out the truth. That's the true adversarial system of justice. Building up strawman arguments is a powerful tool. I have given no concessions. My side issue comment is exactly that, since it has no bearing upon the main arguments of my article.

Dealing with your other points:

1. On the Montreal Police "announcement", you have not yet told me why the police put out what on your case must have been a false announcement.

They didn't give a false announcement. You merely assume this by the phrase the reporter used. The announcement may even have been a general announcement to their own police force and someone relayed this to the reporters, or this is how the reporter phrased it.

And, furthermore, if all that Andrews did was spend a couple of days in background research or collecting documents at the tail end of his visit to North America, why was that even announced at all?

Another strawman. When did I ever say this was the only thing he was doing?

It was announced at Police Headquarters to-day that Andrews has a commission, in connection with two other Scotland Yard men, to find the murderer in America. His inaction for so long a time, and the fact that a man suspected of knowing considerable about the murders left England for this side three weeks ago, makes the London police believe Jack has left that country for this.

I can see why you are trying 'with tooth and nail' to discredit this by nitpicking. Boy, does this scream Francis Tumblety, doesn't it!

2. You ask me whether the newspaper lied in saying that an English detective had come over from England as if a individual person has never lied to a newspaper before. So I ask you: Could the bar keeper not have been lying? Or simply mistaken?

…It was just as this story was being furnished to the press that a new character appeared on the scene, and it was not long before he completely absorbed the attention of every one. He was a little man with enormous red side whiskers and a smoothly shaven chin. He was dressed in an English tweed suit and wore an enormous pair of boots with soles an inch thick. He could not be mistaken in his mission. There was an elaborate attempt at concealment and mystery which could not be possibly misunderstood. Everything about him told of his business. From his little billycock hat, alternately set jauntilly on the side of his head and pulled lowering over his eyes, down to the very bottom of his thick boots, he was a typical English detective. If he had been put on a stage just as he paraded up and down Fourth avenue and Tenth street yesterday he would have been called a caricature.
First he would assume his heavy villain appearance. Then his hat would be pulled down over his eyes and he would walk up and down in front of No. 79 staring intently into the windows as he passed, to the intense dismay of Mrs. McNamara, who was peering out behind the blinds at him with ever-increasing alarm. Then his mood changed. His hat was pushed back in a devil-may-care way and he marched to No. 79 with a swagger, whistling gayly, convinced that his disguise was complete and that no one could possibly recognize him.
His headquarters was a saloon on the corner, where he held long and mysterious conversations with the barkeeper always ending in both of them drinking together. The barkeeper epitomized the conversations by saying:"He wanted to know about a feller named Tumblety , and I sez I didn't know nothing at all about him; 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."

Be my guest and read the above. Sorry David, I don't buy it.

You invite me to speculate as to who could have hired a private detective to follow Tumblety and that is an easy one. It could have been one of his sureties who would, presumably, have been spoken to by officers as soon as it was discovered he had fled, with that surety wanting to hunt down Tumblety to get his money, which he was about to forfeit, back.

Per Chief Inspector Littlechild, we know Scotland Yard discovered he was in France just before he left on the La Bretagne. ...and you're saying Scotland Yard spent the time to contact Tumblety's sureties in order for them. The sureties then quickly contacted a private detective agency, spending an amazing amount of money on a detective to sail across the Atlantic then stay there to... watch him? Tumblety was there and he certainly did jump bail. The sureties spent a ton of money on the detective, so why didn't they pursue it? They now have wasted the money on Tumblety AND the money on this detective.

...or it was indeed a Scotland Yard detective, who couldn't arrest him because he had no authority to, so he staked his residence out.

David, your comment about this man being a private detective doesn't fit, but it does show an attempt to minimalize. That's not an honest search for truth.

3. On the issue of the two phantom Scotland Yard detectives, are you able to tell me who they are? Did they have a cover story, or a "vehicle", like Andrews is supposed to have had to get him to Toronto? If not, why not?

David, why did you use the word, phantom? Was this word used by a contemporary source? This word sound like a type of word used to convince a juror. Who cares if I don't know the names of these detectives.

4. With regard the Daily Telegraph report, there is not much point me responding to your points on this as you seem to have abandoned any reliance on it yourself.

A continuance of a strawman argument.

5. On the date of Andrews' departure, I have to ask you the same question as I asked Simon. What is the evidence that Andrews left on the 24th as opposed to the 22nd? Are you seriously saying that because the Montreal Herald said three months later that he boarded the Oregon that this is somehow evidence that Andrews took the Peruvian?

Another lawyer's trick, mixed with some red herring - The 'absence of evidence is evidence for absence' fallacy. In the case of the Montreal Herald some three months later, it looks like you're assuming they used their failing memory to report the story, thus not credible. That's not how reporting worked.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Hunter]

This is 1888, but before the arrest of Tumblety - Abberline's communications with the Bremen police about "Mary" the hairdresser.

[David Orsam]

Hi Mike,

You have amused me with your response on this "side issue". In particular, I note with amusement your concession - clearly in response to the Anderson briefing note - that Andrews might never have gone to New York at all, as if this still fits in with your theory. Moreover, that you don't even believe he ever went to New York City "since there was no reason to". So what are we supposed to make of your reliance on the report of the New York Correspondent of the Daily Telegraph? From your Ripperologist article:

"The New York Correspondent wrote the statement as if he had knowledge of Inspector Andrews arriving in New York City from Montreal."

You go on to say that there are only two possibilities either he "actually did have knowledge of Andrew's arrival "in this city", or he lied". So you are saying he lied, right? Or did I convince you as to the possibility of a mistake?

I suspect you would regard it as condescending of me to tell you to look up the word "unprecedented" but as you don't seem to understand my point about this, and ask me how many examples I am looking for, perhaps you should. Basically I am looking for a single example of Scotland Yard researching a suspect prior to 1888. Both the examples you have given are after 1888. If there are no examples before 1888 then this means that in 1888 it WAS unprecedented to carry out background research into a suspect because it had never happened before. I was helping you out by suggesting you must have meant "unique".

Dealing with your other points:

1. On the Montreal Police "announcement", you have not yet told me why the police put out what on your case must have been a false announcement. And, furthermore, if all that Andrews did was spend a couple of days in background research or collecting documents at the tail end of his visit to North America, why was that even announced at all? (By the way, I don't understand your point about the headline at all. Are you trying to say that the headline was giving additional information to what was in the actual report?)

2. You ask me whether the newspaper lied in saying that an English detective had come over from England as if a individual person has never lied to a newspaper before. So I ask you: Could the bar keeper not have been lying? Or simply mistaken? You invite me to speculate as to who could have hired a private detective to follow Tumblety and that is an easy one. It could have been one of his sureties who would, presumably, have been spoken to by officers as soon as it was discovered he had fled, with that surety wanting to hunt down Tumblety to get his money, which he was about to forfeit, back.

3. On the issue of the two phantom Scotland Yard detectives, are you able to tell me who they are? Did they have a cover story, or a "vehicle", like Andrews is supposed to have had to get him to Toronto? If not, why not?

4. With regard the Daily Telegraph report, there is not much point me responding to your points on this as you seem to have abandoned any reliance on it yourself.

5. On the date of Andrews' departure, I have to ask you the same question as I asked Simon. What is the evidence that Andrews left on the 24th as opposed to the 22nd? Are you seriously saying that because the Montreal Herald said three months later that he boarded the Oregon that this is somehow evidence that Andrews took the Peruvian?

[mklhawley]

He then gives two examples, of Sadler (1891) and Cream (1891). However, in the absence of any other examples, it obviously was unprecedented for Scotland Yard to investigate the history of a suspect to gain useful information! If it had never happened before, it was unprecedented. I think what Mike might be trying to say is that Scotland Yard researching Tumblety wasn't unique, which might make this more of a semantic point, but, nevertheless, if he can't come up with any earlier examples then we need to be careful because what Mike is suggesting would have been far from standard practice for Scotland Yard but the very first time they had ever attempted such a thing.

Your argument is strange, David; the fact that there are two other cases Scotland Yard did so, means it certainly is a possibility. How many examples are you looking for?

1.1 Leaving aside for the moment the basic implausibility of the Montreal Police announcing to the press that three Scotland Yard officers were on a mission (supposedly a secret one) to find the Jack the Ripper in America, this so-called announcement was, on Mike Hawley's own case, absolutely untrue because he tells us that Andrews was on no such mission. He was, according to Mike, either conducting background information or, at best, retrieving documents. Why did the Montreal Police put out false information about Andrews's mission? Mike does not tell us.

At the time of this report, David, Tumblety was nowhere to be found. They certainly did follow him to New York, but he sneaked off only to resurface a month later. Point; you're incorrect. If Andrews was part of Anderson's mission, his particular task did not have to be following his trail, but following up on Canadian leads and collecting information. It still works.

1.2 Further, the number of officers cited causes some difficulty for Mike and his case becomes confused. He cites a report in the New York World of 4 December 1888 in which a bar keeper is reported as saying that he spoke to an English detective who told him he had "come over" to get Tumblety. Mike assumes that this English detective must have come from Scotland Yard, although it could quite easily have been an English private detective, but clearly whoever it was, if he even existed, must have been in very hot pursuit of Tumblety indeed because he must have left England on about 25 of 26 November (i.e. a day or two after Tumblety fled) in order to have got to New York in time to be featured in a report on 4 December.

How on earth could the English detective have been from a private detective agency when no one but Scotland Yard knew Tumblety jumped bail until December 1? Check the newspaper reports. No one knew Tumblety jumpled bail, but Inspector Byrnes did "a week ago", and he clearly got his info from Scotland Yard. The man stated he came over, obviously on a ten day cruise, which means he left for New York just after Tumblety left on November 24. Scotland Yard knew darn well Tumblety boarded from La Havre, and Scotland Yard could easily have put someone on a transatlantic vessel from Liverpool in ample amount of time.

What is, "if he even existed"? Are you serious? The reports of this man were first-hand accounts. Did the paper lie?

1.3 But one Scotland Yard detective is not enough for Mike. The Montreal Police "announcement" spoke of three Scotland Yard detectives who had come to find JTR and Mike is one short. How can he get around this problem?

I'll have to stop you there, David. This is a strawman argument. Your setting it up to make the reader believe this is why I discussed the Chicago Daily Tribune article, then you dismantle my argument that you created. It's actually ridiculous. There was never a need to get around a problem, because there was never a problem in the first place.

One detective following Tumblety across this Atlantic IS good enough, since the United States clearly has others stationed here.

1.4 I would argue that the report of the so-called announcement from Montreal of three Scotland Yard detectives being on a mission in America to hunt Jack the Ripper is untrue - because the Montreal Police would have had no business making such an announcement and only one reporter claims to have heard it - and arose from the earlier reports of "Inspectors" Jarvis and Shore being in America which led the New York Evening World Reporter to come to the erroneous conclusion that Jarvis, Shore and Andrews must all have come across the Atlantic to find the Whitechapel Murderer.

You don't know that only one reporter claims to have heard it. This is a case of absence of evidence is evidence for absence. I would argue that when it was reported, "It was announced today," that it was indeed announced.

2.1 In respect of the Daily Telegraph report of Inspector Andrews having arrived in New York, Mike accepts that the report is almost entirely a reproduction of earlier newspaper reports. Thus, he says, "The correspondent certainly did repackage the story out of Montreal, as evidenced by nearly identical information, but the first sentence is different”. This first sentence is the statement that "Inspector Andrews has arrived in New York from Montreal".

It's much more sound that you supporting your argument with an abbreviated article snippet, then not informing your readers of this.

2.3 It is evident that the New York correspondent of the Daily Telegraph was repackaging stories from the New York papers for the benefit of readers in England. There was no obvious journalism involved on his part. The chances of this journalist having read that Andrews was coming to New York, then rushed to the train station see him arrive before doing no more than adding a single sentence to a report, simply stating that Andrews had arrived, are minimal in the extreme.

David, you're not supporting this with facts, but conjecture and biased opinion.

3.1. What of the "missing" two days? Here is how Mike tells it (with bold added):

"Curiously, Andrews was reported to have boarded a ship to England a full four days after his Montreal meeting with the chief of police."

So the source of Mike's point appears to be a newspaper report. But which one? Mike does not say but it is possible that he is referring to a report in the Boston Sunday Globe of 23 December 1888 which suggested that Andrews was to sail on the Peruvian the following day. If this is the case then there were no reports that Andrews boarded a ship on 24 December as Mike claims, only that he was going to board a ship on 24 December. Moreover, the Boston Sunday Globe report of 23 December is a very unreliable report (being the one I have suggested should be consigned to the garbage) so it might well be wrong about Andrews getting the Peruvian.

3.2 While it is quite possible that Andrews did board the Peruvian (as I have said in the Trilogy) this is not, to my knowledge, a confirmed fact and it is equally possible that he caught the Sarnia which departed on 22 December. He could equally have boarded any other later ship but we simply don't know.

Kind of a ridiculous argument when you state not a "confirmed fact" and "we simply don't know". Since you have no evidence he took the Sarnia, then your argument falls upon deaf ears.

3.3 At one point in his article, Mike says: "Recall, Andrews did not show up to Halifax until the day of his departure". What is the evidence of this? It seems to be a report in the Morning Herald of 22 March 1889 which said that Andrews was spoken to by a reporter "as he stepped from the train at the deep water terminus and on board the steamer Oregon.” Mike seems to take this literally to mean that Andrews stepped off the train and onto the steamer, all presumably within a few minutes and certainly on the same day. But there is a serious problem in relying on this report because it refers to the Oregon which did not leave Halifax for Liverpool until 5 January 1889. If true, there would be a wonderful 12 "missing" days for Mike to speculate about but it seems he is only interested in two.

David, it's interesting when you encounter something from the papers that doesn't seem to fit you suggest the reporter got it ALL wrong. Interestingly, the Oregon arrived in Halifax on December 24. Quite the coincidental date and in the same harbor! Could it be the reporter did indeed speak to Andrews and mere wrote down the wrong ship, and a ship that was probably moored next to Andrews' ship.

By the way, your last statement is quite condescending.

Andrews was not in the United States at all. There was have it. He was never in the United States so he never went to New York. It is official. This was a briefing note from the Assistant Commissioner to the Home Secretary for the Home Secretary to use in answering questions in the House of Commons. It had to be 100% accurate to avoid the Home Secretary misleading the House.

So. He could easily have collected it at the border. It's still irrelevant to my whole point. The Montreal article is quite credible.

Now, I'll be back in a few days.

Sincerely,

Mike

[mklhawley]

Hi David,

I just saw your rebuttal, but I'll be gone a few days. I will definitely give it the credit it deserves. I see you've focused upon the 'Andrews going to New York' part, which is really only a side point, irrelevant to Anderson's mission in America to investigate Francis Tumblety.

Quickly, with New York less than thirty miles away from Montreal, his mission could easily have been to the New York border (losing no time to Halifax), whether he crossed the border or the New York based detectives crossed it into Canada, I see no issue, although this would allow for the claim Andrews did not step on US soil. I also agree he would not have gone to New York City, since there was no reason to.

My point is this Montreal report, especially the headline, is credible. Headlines are not formed by newspapers (such as the New York World and the St. Louis Republic) out of thin air. Cooperating newspapers will either reproduce the exact headline or change it a bit. The version of the report that you emphasize was merely a snippet paragraph of a larger two-column report, i.e., it had no headline of its own and not all of the facts were presented. The intension of that particular article was not to give the full story (just like all the dozen-plus snippet stories in that article), but was brevity. I may be wrong, but it sounds like you're claiming the Montreal article you preferred is more accurate, since it stuck just to specific facts. If true, I reject this. In view of the article being in the 'one paragraph per story' column, I suggest the newspaper didn't even have one of its reporters at Central Station, but merely took the story as the New York World and St. Louis Republic did.

Sorry for the quick response, and I'll give it a better read in a few days.

Sincerely,

Mike

[David Orsam]

Simon,

We were doing so well, with you actually answering my questions, and then I ask you to substantiate one crucial fact - something you categorically stated was true - and it all falls apart, with an evasive response from you.

So I can take it that there is no evidence at all that Andrews caught the 7.55am train on 22 December, right?

As for what you did say to me....

Hi David,

Let me try to understand this.

Everything I have cited is wrong; and everything you have suggested might be right.

No, you have misunderstood.

I am saying that the evidence (i.e. a contemporaneous report from Montreal) suggests that Andrews departed Montreal on the evening of 20 December.

I don't know what ship Andrews caught but I am saying he might have caught the Sarnia on 22 December because there is no solid evidence to the contrary.

I could ask what evidence you have that Andrews did not spend two nights at the Windsor Hotel and left Montreal on 20th December, the day he arrived, but I fear you could not give me an answer.

Well the evidence is the newspaper report from Montreal cited above which says that Andrews left Montreal on 20 December and I note that Wolf agrees with me on this one. Thus he says in his Ripper Notes article of 24 October 2005 (p.41):

"Inspector Andrews left Montreal on the 20th December only hours after he reached it..."

hey, what difference does it make whether Andrews caught the Sarnia or the Peruvian? Either way he would have spent New Year's Eve on the Atlantic.

I agree with you that he probably did spend New Year's Eve on the Atlantic but my point was that there is no solid evidence that he caught the Sarnia OR the Peruvian. He could have spent a month travelling around Canada for all I know. The only reason I raised this is because I was puzzled (a) how you could tell Mike Hawley that Andrews was definitely on the Atlantic on New Year's Eve and (b) why Mike never asked you what the evidence was for that statement.

I'm not saying it makes any difference. I am enquiring from the point of view of a historian trying to get at the truth of the matter.

Unless, of course, you're suggesting Andrews might have missed both liners and spent New Year's Eve in Halifax, Nova Scotia.

I'm not suggesting it, I don't think it at all likely that this happened but it is theoretically possible that he decided to spend New Year's Eve in Canada. I don't like loose ends and wanted to know if there was any evidence I as unaware of because you seemed so certain.

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

Let me try to understand this.

Everything I have cited is wrong; and everything you have suggested might be right.

I could ask what evidence you have that Andrews did not spend two nights at the Windsor Hotel and left Montreal on 20th December, the day he arrived, but I fear you could not give me an answer.

And if you can't answer—hey, what difference does it make whether Andrews caught the Sarnia or the Peruvian? Either way he would have spent New Year's Eve on the Atlantic or the Irish Sea.

Unless, of course, you're suggesting Andrews might have missed both liners and spent New Year's Eve in Halifax, Nova Scotia.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

He arrived in the face of the worst blizzard of the season. Trains were delayed. He spent two nights at the Windsor Hotel on Dominion Square.

Can you give me any actual evidence that trains were being delayed out of Montreal on 20 or 21 December? I found a report dated 18 December from Montreal saying that some trains were being delayed due to bad weather during the previous night but can you provide some evidence that delays were continuing out of Montreal two or three days later?

On 22nd December he took the 7.55 am train from Montreal, arriving in Halifax late the following day, 23rd December.

Okay so what is the evidence that he caught the 7.55am train out of Montreal on 22 December? It is strange that you haven't posted this if you have any.

How might Andrews have contrived to sail aboard the Sarnia on 22nd December?

See above. He might have contrived to sail aboard the Sarnia on 22 December if he left Montreal on 20 December and the trains were all back to normal after the snowstorm which occurred during the night of 17/18 December.

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

"Andrews appears to have left Montreal on 20 December and could thus have boarded the Sarnia on 22 December."

Andrews arrived in Montreal on 20th December.

He arrived in the face of the worst blizzard of the season. Trains were delayed. He spent two nights at the Windsor Hotel on Dominion Square.

On 22nd December he took the 7.55 am train from Montreal, arriving in Halifax late the following day, 23rd December.

The SS Peruvian sailed on 24th December.

How might Andrews have contrived to sail aboard the Sarnia on 22nd December?

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

Thank you Simon. I see you are prepared to answer some questions from me then.

I think you are in error though. The Boston Sunday Globe and New York World stories of 23 December were filed on 22 December so any reference to "yesterday morning" in those reports must have been to 21 December.

This does not, however, appear to be the date of Andrews' departure from Montreal because a story filed on 20 December from Montreal, published in the Evening World on 21 December, stated that Andrews "left tonight" albeit wrongly stating the destination as New York. This must surely be a better source of information than the report in the Boston Sunday Globe/New York World which, even you have admitted, has problems with its chronology. On that basis, unless you have any additional information, Andrews appears to have left Montreal on 20 December and could thus have boarded the Sarnia on 22 December.

Furthermore, the New York World story of 16 January 1889 might well have been referencing its own story of 23 December which said that Andrews had "bought passage on the Allan Line steamer Peruvian, leaving Halifax on Monday evening" and that "Two members of the League will accompany Andrews to England on the Peruvian on Monday" (Monday being 24 December). In other words, it might have been its own source for the notion that Andrews left on the 24th.

For those reasons, I don't think there is any solid evidence at all that Andrews left Halifax on 24 December but thank you for setting out your reasons for thinking he did, which is helpful.

I'm glad we are in agreement that Andrews did not go to New York and that Anderson's briefing note to Henry Matthews was correct in this respect.

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

Inspector Andrews did not go to New York.

Good to know that you agree with Wolf and myself on this.

Equally, Andrews did not sail from Halifax on 22nd December aboard the Sarnia.

The Boston Sunday Globe and The World [NY], 23rd December 1888, ran the story of Andrews leaving Montreal "yesterday morning."

At 7.55 am on Saturday 22nd December, Andrews' train steamed out of Montreal’s Grand Trunk Depot on Bonaventure Street on its 30+ hour, 716-mile journey to Halifax, Nova Scotia, and arrived during the evening of Sunday 23rd December.

In a story filed from Montreal, The World [NY], 16th January 1889, reported that Inspector Andrews "left this country on Dec. 24th for England with a satchel full of so-called evidence.”

The SS Peruvian sailed from Halifax on 24th December.

The SS Peruvian docked at Queenstown, Ireland, 2nd January 1889

The SS Peruvian docked at Liverpool, 3rd January 1889.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

Andrews didn't travel incognito (because there is a record of his arrival under his own name at Halifax - see "The Third Man" article).

If no-one's prepared to ask him then I guess we will never know the reason for Simon's certainty that the inspector was sailing across the Atlantic on 31 December.

[Mayerling]

Hi Dave,

First though, thank you Simon for your imput.

I was almost tempted to "Title" this response, "Of shoes, and SHIPS, and sealing wax..." but it seemed too flippant.

The reason I brought it up was the apparent choice of either immediate return by "Sarnia" or on the "Peruvian" for one reason or another. I guessed both shipping lines because Cunard was known (until the Queens Mary and Elizabeths) for ending their ships with "ia" like "Lusitania", while the lesser recalled "Leyland Line" ended with "ian" as in the "Californian", which may (or may not) have been close to the sinking Titanic on the night to remember.

I figured if there had been surviving passenger lists for the ships they'd include (on one or the other) Inspector Andrews (unless he travelled incognito - a point I felt unnecessary if travelling on official business). However, it seems less likely if the ships were from minor, probably long gone shipping lines (Cunard, of course still exists, and has an archives).

Jeff

[David Orsam]

Jeff, you are very privileged in having Simon Wood answer one of your questions in this thread, albeit that your question was addressed to me, because it is something I have not been able to achieve in the entire thread.

He is, indeed, correct (and I might add that the Oregon was Dominion Line).

I don't know if Andrews had a return ticket, meaning that he had to take a Dominion Line ship home or if he could take ship of any line.

One thing I have always been puzzled by has been Simon Wood's certainty in telling Mike Hawley in previous posts that Inspector Andrews was on his way home on the Atlantic when the Daily Telegraph/Pall Mall Gazette story of 31 December was published (thus casting doubt on the credibility of the story that Andrews had arrived in New York). I think Mike has got it right in saying that there was a ten day delay in the story being filed and it being published so that this is not the reason to doubt the story. I also think that Simon Wood must be right in that Andrews surely boarded his ship back home at some point between 22-24 December but what is his evidence for saying this?

Perhaps you can ask him Jeff because you seem to be having more luck than me.

And as for your research question - I don't know if the passenger lists exist and didn't do any research regarding passenger lists, on the basis that I assumed such research would already have been done and, in any event, it wasn't particularly important to me which exact ship Andrews boarded in view of Anderson's clear statement that he never went to the United States.