The 'Suckered!' Trilogy

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jeff,

The SS Sarnia was Dominion Line.

The SS Peruvian was Allan Line.

Regards,

Simon

[Mayerling]

3.4 So to recap. Andrews left Montreal on 20 December but Mike thinks he did not depart from Halifax until 24 December. Mike says "With at most a two day train ride what did he do the other two days?" He then speculates about this, with his story of Andrews in New York, but we need to consider some other possibilities. For there are three options which do not involve "missing" days or Andrews going to New York.

Option 1 - Andrews caught the Sarnia on 22 December. We have no evidence either way as to whether he did or did not.

Option 2 - Andrews arrived in Halifax on 22 December but too late to catch the Sarnia which had already gone. He thus had to wait in Halifax until 24 December for the Peruvian (as I am not aware of any ships leaving Halifax for England on 23 December).

Option 3 - Bad weather delayed him and a two day rail journey took three days so that he arrived in Halifax on 23 December and waited to catch the Peruvian the following day.

3.5 Whichever one of these options is right, we can be certain that Andrews did not go to New York. The evidence for this is in my trilogy.

Hi David,

As far as you know, was the "Sarnia" a Cunarder? And was the "Peruvian" a ship of the Leyland Line. If so, do the passenger lists for these shipping lines exist (as far as you know)? Because, if they do, one might be able to pinpoint which ship Andrews took home.

Jeff

[David Orsam]

Response to Mike Hawley

In his article, "Anderson's Furtive Mission in North America", published in the June 2015 issue of Ripperologist, Mike Hawley argues that Inspector Andrews went to New York in December 2015, apparently "as part of his Canadian agenda of collecting information” and specifically in order to "retrieve documents collected by other Scotland Yard officials stationed off the east coast". Mike very generously gives me credit for locating some press reports in his article and I mean no discourtesy to him in this post but his argument contradicts the conclusions of my trilogy, hence I feel a response is called for. I intend to demonstrate in this post that Mike is mistaken and, furthermore, that he appears to have missed a crucial piece of evidence that has always been contained in my trilogy.

Before dealing with the central planks of Mike's argument that Andrews went to New York, one related point should be mentioned in respect of Mike's belief that Andrews was in Toronto to research Francis Tumblety's background. Mike says:

"As Roger Palmer explained, it was not unprecedented for Scotland Yard to investigate the history of a suspect in order to gain useful information."

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.

As for Mike's claim that Andrews went to New York - and leaving aside his reliance on Logan and Dew, something already discussed at length in this thread - he seems to rely on three things:

1. The report in the New York Evening World of 21 December 1888 which said: "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."

2. A report in the Daily Telegraph of 31 December 1888 that Andrews had arrived in New York (presumably on the morning of 21 December).

3. A "missing" two days between the time when Andrews should have arrived in Halifax (on 22 December) and his apparent departure from Halifax (on 24 December).

Dealing with each of these in turn,

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.

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.

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? What he does is take a quote from the Chicago Daily Tribune of 9 December 1888 which stated:

"Dr Tumblety was the fellow that Scotland Yard detectives followed to New York and is said to be on his way to Chicago."

So Mike seems to have found at least two Scotland Yard detectives who are said to have followed Tumblety to New York prior to Andrews' arrival in Toronto. He thinks he has found his missing detective! But hold on, what is the source for the Chicago Daily Tribune's report? It is an informal conversation between a reporter and an inspector of the Chicago police. Let's look at the full article:

"Superintendent Hubbard and Inspector Honfield were in close converse over the new Anarchist excitement when a reporter said "Tumbelty" to them.

"Are you looking for the Whitechapel murderer?" was asked of the inspector.

"You know more about it than I do," was the satisfactory reply. "Who is he anyhow?"

"Dr Tumbelty, they say, the fellow that Scotland Yard detectives followed to New York, and who is said to be on his way to Chicago."

"Why don't Scotland Yard detectives arrest him then?" said Hornfield with a laugh. "I believe I read some 'rot' in the papers about Inspector Byrnes' detectives shadowing a man named Dr. Tumbelty. I take no stock in it though, because if he is headed for Chicago Byrnes would have telegraphed to us. We have no information on the subject, and shall leave Dr. Tumblety to the Scotland Yards men."

It is clear from this that the reporter was merely passing on hearsay information to Inspector Hornfield. The source was probably an unreliable newspaper report of the type that had appeared in the New York World five days before the above conversation was published. So the chances are that Mike is corroborating unreliable information in newspaper reports by referring to other newspaper reports based on that same unreliable information.

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.

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".

2.2 According to Mike, there are only possibilities here: "the correspondent actually did have knowledge of Andrews’ arrival in the city, or he lied." This is not correct at all for the correspondent did not say "I saw Inspector Andrews arrive". So the third possibility is that the Daily Telegraph correspondent was mistaken and he assumed on the basis of the reports dated 20 December, which said that Andrews had left Montreal for New York, that Andrews simply must have arrived in New York on 21 December. So he reported the story in the way he did. He guessed but guessed wrong.

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.

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.

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.

3.4 So to recap. Andrews left Montreal on 20 December but Mike thinks he did not depart from Halifax until 24 December. Mike says "With at most a two day train ride what did he do the other two days?" He then speculates about this, with his story of Andrews in New York, but we need to consider some other possibilities. For there are three options which do not involve "missing" days or Andrews going to New York.

Option 1 - Andrews caught the Sarnia on 22 December. We have no evidence either way as to whether he did or did not.

Option 2 - Andrews arrived in Halifax on 22 December but too late to catch the Sarnia which had already gone. He thus had to wait in Halifax until 24 December for the Peruvian (as I am not aware of any ships leaving Halifax for England on 23 December).

Option 3 - Bad weather delayed him and a two day rail journey took three days so that he arrived in Halifax on 23 December and waited to catch the Peruvian the following day.

3.5 Whichever one of these options is right, we can be certain that Andrews did not go to New York. The evidence for this is in my trilogy. In a briefing memo for the Home Secretary dated 17 March 1890, Robert Anderson wrote (bold added):

"Andrews (since pensioned) had taken an extradition prisoner to Canada...but he was not in the United States at all".

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. There was no reason for Robert Anderson to deliberately mislead the Home Secretary about what Andrews had done in America while working on proper police business. He simply had to give him correct information. For that reason, we know that Inspector Andrews was never in New York at any time in 1888. Some reports coming out from Montreal on 20 December said that Andrews was heading for New York but others said that he was heading home to England. The fact is that he never went to New York so he must have been going back to England.

[David Orsam]

Yes, I know what you have said. You keep saying the same thing over and over. It’s just that it’s very hard to believe. You, the man who stated that “for the sake of history, it has been essential for me to attempt to knock the ideas that you have been advancing on the head before they gain wider acceptance and transfer from the narrow world of ripperology into mainstream history, thus corrupting history itself;” the white knight in shining armour battling to save history from the Barbarians, ignoring the most recognized “distorted version” of Inspector Andrews’ trip to Southern Ontario? That doesn’t quite add up. Historical “distortions” on one side, Messiah complex on the other. As I said, very hard to believe.

Well I suppose I will just have to end up saying it again. My trilogy was a response to the work of three authors which I read earlier this year. It was not a comprehensive account of every argument that has ever been made. Further, in responding to R.J. Palmer's trilogy I believed (and still do believe) that I was responding to the most comprehensive, influential and up-to-date work in favour of Andrews' business in Southern Ontario being Tumblety related, so that it would have incorporated any earlier important arguments on the subject (and, indeed, Palmer does mention Evans & Gainey). I also remind you that the very first thing I asked you on this subject was to tell me if there were any important arguments I had missed and what they were. You have not done so and for that reason I do not believe that my trilogy has missed any important arguments on the subject at all.

Oh, and thanks for attempting to clear up the Andrews at Montreal Police headquarters point.

You are welcome.

You state, however, that “The Langhorn point was actually one that I first saw pushed by Simon Wood in his internet postings. His argument (such as he ever makes arguments) was that THIS was why Andrews was at the police HQ in Montreal, i.e. it had nothing to do with Jack the Ripper.” So you are saying, therefore, that you copied Simon’s point, without attribution, rather than my section on Andrews’ visit to Montreal Police Headquarters?

No Wolf, I didn't copy anything. Simon's internet post alerted me to the existence of the John Langhorn issue but I don't know where he got his knowledge from and am fairly sure that he does not have copyright over the fact that John Langhorn was arrested after claiming to be Jack the Ripper nor on an argument that Andrews came to Montreal to investigate Langhorn. Far from copying his point, however, I actually came to the conclusion that he was unlikely to be correct on the basis, as I belatedly noted from your article, that Langhorn was released by the magistrate with a caution the day before Andrews arrived in Montreal. However, as it was just about possible that the police still wanted to discuss Langhorn with a Scotland Yard detective I didn't want to dismiss it completely. I note that Simon hasn't complained and I have no idea why you think in such personal terms about it. It's a complete non-point.

Even though my article was published in 2005 and you have gone over my articles with a fine toothed comb? Again, very hard to believe. However, I did write “Your section seems amazingly similar to my earlier work. Oddly alike. Coincidence? Sorry, don’t buy it.” I thought I was being fairly clear on this so I don’t really need to read your justifications. Perhaps it was mean to attempt to sway others.

You were certainly being very clear but my point - equally clear - is that my section is not "amazingly similar" to your earlier work because there are a number of significant differences.

I know this sort of thing happens, it has happened to me several times, but I always think it’s a “dickish” (there’s that word again!) thing to do. But that’s just me. You, apparently, see things differently.

As I did not copy anything from your article, although of course I read it and absorbed it, nothing "dickish" has occurred.

You seem to have become completely unhinged here

This is a quite unnecessary comment - inappropriate and without any foundation - and one I would not have expected to read from a serious author.

and it’s a little embarrassing to be honest with you.

You should be embarrassed.

I’m not sure how I could have made my meaning much clearer. Astoundingly, however, you somehow have come to the conclusion that I missed the point of my own post? (!!)

Had you read what I wrote properly you would have seen that I said (with bold added to assist you):

"To say you have missed the point here Wolf - or rather avoided the issue - is an understatement."

I don't know how I could have made my meaning much clearer.

I can tell you that I did not. You, however, have gone zooming past merely missing my point and have slammed squarely into some sort of delusional world were you, utterly bizarrely, think that you know better than I do myself what I was trying to get across!

No, I was telling you that you had avoided the issue, which you did and still have.

One begins to wonder whether we, here, seem like ants crawling at your God-like feet. And for some reason Shelley springs to mind (My name is David Awesome, King of Kings, Look on my works, oh puny Ripperologists, and despair!)

I can't account, or be responsible for what is going on inside your head, Wolf.

Anyway, I was fairly clear on the point I was making. I wrote a whole paragraph explaining it. For some reason, however, you decided to ignore this, edited it out of your response, when you re-posted my post, but, inexplicably, tacked part of it on at the beginning of your next post – out of context – for some bizarre reason.

I don't know what you are talking about.

You then deigned to tell me what my point actually was, or what it should have been, according to you, and then demanded answers to some questions which have no relation to my post and which are off topic to this board (after you have told others stay on topic or leave).

I have never told anyone to "stay on topic or leave". And the questions I have asked you are completely 100% on the topic of this thread.

Yes, you are nothing if not interesting (my favourite word, as you have noticed). Shithouse rat crazy, but interesting (in a transparent, evasive, and arrogant, way) none the less.

To call me "Shithouse rat crazy" is nothing more than personal abuse which should have no place on this forum.

Here is the full paragraph that you edited out of your response:
“It appears that you want to dazzle the credulous with your research skills, even though, in this case, your research is mostly irrelevant. It’s almost half a page of padding. It reminds me of the old Russian saying, ‘If you throw enough bullshit against the wall and some of it will stick.’ That the actual answer to the question you were trying to answer comes from Chief Constable Grasett’s telegram (which I discovered), and this information is tacked on at the end, almost as a brief afterthought, tells me something about you. Apparently you feel the need to downplay the findings of others while, at the same time, highlighting your own extraneous research (presumably in order to “demolish” the other author’s works). Proof, apparently, that you don’t like to let the facts get in the way of a good “demolishing.” As I said, interesting.”

Now I understand why I edited that out of my response. There is nothing sensible in there for me to respond to.

Allow me to add to this your statement that “I have not personally seen the original letter or the date on that letter but if there is a letter dated 4 October 1888 enclosing the extradition papers…” If. Yes, let’s throw some doubt onto the research of others.

You misunderstand entirely. In the first place, your article provides no date of any letter. All it says is that "By the 4th of October Grassett decided that Toronto would have to proceed with what evidence it had in hand. Once more Grassett wrote to Anderson..." and then shortly afterwards you quote a letter from Grassett to Anderson. Nowhere do you actually state that the letter was dated 4 October 1888. Without seeing that letter with my own eyes I do not know if the letter is actually dated 4 October 1888 (and I still don't) or if you have inferred the date from other contextual evidence in which the document appears. It's not a question of throwing doubt on your research but I have no idea if you have mis-read, mis-interpreted or mis-deciphered the date on the letter, if it actually bears a date. In any event, you are far too sensitive. I wasn't casting any doubt in the trilogy, I was just being cautious as any researcher should be. I have no issue with the date of that letter, it does not affect my argument in any way at all, and if you tell me it is dated 4 October 1888 then that's perfectly fine. This is a complete and utter non-issue.

Let’s suggest that others are falsifying information because, apparently, this slur makes it easier for you to proclaim your own dazzling brilliance.

There has never been any suggestion from me of anyone "falsifying information" and I have no idea why you think I have even come close to this. You are being overly-sensitive in the absolute extreme.

Allow me to amend what I wrote above. “Apparently you feel the need to smear the findings of others while, at the same time, highlighting your own extraneous research (presumably in order to “demolish” the other author’s works). Proof, apparently, that you don’t like to let the facts get in the way of a good “demolishing.” You know “dickish” just doesn’t seem to even begin to scratch the surface of it.

This is all just abuse. On a number of factual matters I have stated clearly that your article is wrong. That is not to "smear" you. Please take the opportunity to respond to all the points where I have said your article is wrong. So far you have not done so but continue to throw up these irrelevant and evasive attacks on me.

As for your questions, surely you, David, with your omniscience and God-like abilities needn’t ask them.

Wolf, that is just evasion pure and simple.

You can just divine the answers you want. How could you trust what I say anyway? However, I will answer them at a later date, after I’ve asked you some questions. Can’t say fairer than that.

Well, perhaps, we are getting somewhere although I have no idea why it needs to be "at a later date" and why you haven't already answered those questions.

Two things of interest here. First, it seems that everyone who dares questions you has “gone badly wrong,” or has “missed the point,” even when you claim to have been “quite clear.”

I have justified everything I have said. The fact of the matter is that a lot of posters in this thread have indeed gone badly wrong and have often missed the point, frequently in response to something I have said which is quite clear. It just needs a read through the thread to see that.

Re-read your posts to see how true this is. Once again, we rubes on the Casebook can’t seem to understand your brilliance.

You are simply attributing thoughts to me which I don't have.

This must be so very frustrating for you.

What is frustrating is people who do not want to engage in debate and who do not properly read or understand my responses. Perhaps most frustrating of all are people who say: "very hard to believe" about things which I am telling them about myself or my article from my own personal knowledge which are true.

Second, you seem to hide behind semantics a lot. Tom pointed this out in an earlier post.

With all due respect to him, if you are relying on Tom to support one of your arguments you have lost it already.

Your attack on Jeff, with your “misunderstanding” of who he was talking about, is an embarrassing example. I suspect everyone who read Jeff’s post knew what he was talking about.

I never made any attacks on Jeff. In fact, I have no idea what you are talking about. I recall asking Jeff some questions because I didn't quite understand what he was saying. He seemed perfectly capable of answering me himself and explaining what he meant, which is what he did.

Everyone, that is, but you, apparently. However, your halo slips quite badly when you resort to relying on the parsing of words to “demolish” questions posed by others.

What halo? Your post just gets weirder.

This last bit is odd since I posted, quite clearly I thought, that “Also, I’d like to explain the following post. It doesn’t deal with the “substance” of part 2 of your article (that will come later). Below are just a few things that stuck in my mind after I read Part 2. Things that offer a small glimpse into your personality.” I’m not sure how much clearer I could be with “[I]It doesn’t deal with the “substance” of part 2 of your article (that will come later).

Are you saying you have dealt with the substance of my article yet? Where do I find such a thing?

Sadly for you, however, I’m not at all desperate to find some sort of flaw or inconsistency in your articles. There are enough there to be surprising.

A fitting conclusion to your post. You say are not desperate to find a flaw or inconsistency in my articles yet, at the same time, you have found so many - yet, at the same time, you do not tell us what they are.

[Phil Carter]

Funny...

I thought the prosecution had rested it's case?

Apparently not.

Yet another misunderstanding. Oh well.

Such is the imperfection and ignorance of one of the proletariat.

Maybe it is just wishful thinking.



Phil

[David Orsam]

Hi Wolf,

I read your post and tried in vain, very hard, to find a single point of substance in amongst all the personal attacks. I was unable to.

Perhaps this will come "later" but who knows?

Having said this, I don't want you to think I am ducking anything and you have made so many bad points that it will be enjoyable to tear them apart. But maybe next time we can discuss something, anything, arising from the trilogy.

I have suggested that you set out the points in my trilogy which you agree with (if any) and those you disagree with and state if you want to concede that anything in your articles was wrong or needs to be amended. I continue waiting for this, just as I continue waiting to the answers to my questions.

You can be as evasive as you like though, it's up to you.

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Hi David.

I didn’t expect you to respond to my post of the 18th of June. I was just posting some of my initial thoughts after reading your article but, seeing that you did respond forces me to also respond.

“I have no agenda. I read the three articles by you, Simon Wood and R.J. Palmer, didn't think they were correct, did the research of primary sources which confirmed this - and wrote the trilogy. There was no need for me to read any secondary works and I did not do so. That is why Evans and Gainey, who you keep mentioning, are not referred to by me. I have already told you this but you don't seem to be able to absorb it.

Yes, I know what you have said. You keep saying the same thing over and over. It’s just that it’s very hard to believe. You, the man who stated that “for the sake of history, it has been essential for me to attempt to knock the ideas that you have been advancing on the head before they gain wider acceptance and transfer from the narrow world of ripperology into mainstream history, thus corrupting history itself;” the white knight in shining armour battling to save history from the Barbarians, ignoring the most recognized “distorted version” of Inspector Andrews’ trip to Southern Ontario? That doesn’t quite add up. Historical “distortions” on one side, Messiah complex on the other. As I said, very hard to believe.

Oh, and thanks for attempting to clear up the Andrews at Montreal Police headquarters point. You state, however, that “The Langhorn point was actually one that I first saw pushed by Simon Wood in his internet postings. His argument (such as he ever makes arguments) was that THIS was why Andrews was at the police HQ in Montreal, i.e. it had nothing to do with Jack the Ripper.” So you are saying, therefore, that you copied Simon’s point, without attribution, rather than my section on Andrews’ visit to Montreal Police Headquarters? Even though my article was published in 2005 and you have gone over my articles with a fine toothed comb? Again, very hard to believe. However, I did write “Your section seems amazingly similar to my earlier work. Oddly alike. Coincidence? Sorry, don’t buy it.” I thought I was being fairly clear on this so I don’t really need to read your justifications. Perhaps it was mean to attempt to sway others.
I know this sort of thing happens, it has happened to me several times, but I always think it’s a “dickish” (there’s that word again!) thing to do. But that’s just me. You, apparently, see things differently.

To say you have missed the point here Wolf - or rather avoided the issue - is an understatement. And I will make good that statement at the end of this post. Let me start with the point you are making.
As I mention in the passage you have cited, the Toronto Evening News of 2 October 1888 was saying that that the extradition papers had already been sent to London. I then go on to say that you found a letter of 4 October 1888 enclosing the extradition papers. I have not personally seen the original letter or the date on that letter but if there is a letter dated 4 October 1888 enclosing the extradition papers then it is fairly obvious that the papers were sent on that date. The difference of two days is absolutely irrelevant and I am not making any point out of it. As I go on to say, the papers "had certainly arrived in London by 15 October" and that is the end of it.

You seem to have become completely unhinged here and it’s a little embarrassing to be honest with you. I’m not sure how I could have made my meaning much clearer. Astoundingly, however, you somehow have come to the conclusion that I missed the point of my own post? (!!) I can tell you that I did not. You, however, have gone zooming past merely missing my point and have slammed squarely into some sort of delusional world were you, utterly bizarrely, think that you know better than I do myself what I was trying to get across! One begins to wonder whether we, here, seem like ants crawling at your God-like feet. And for some reason Shelley springs to mind (My name is David Awesome, King of Kings, Look on my works, oh puny Ripperologists, and despair!)

Anyway, I was fairly clear on the point I was making. I wrote a whole paragraph explaining it. For some reason, however, you decided to ignore this, edited it out of your response, when you re-posted my post, but, inexplicably, tacked part of it on at the beginning of your next post – out of context – for some bizarre reason. You then deigned to tell me what my point actually was, or what it should have been, according to you, and then demanded answers to some questions which have no relation to my post and which are off topic to this board (after you have told others stay on topic or leave). Yes, you are nothing if not interesting (my favourite word, as you have noticed). Shithouse rat crazy, but interesting (in a transparent, evasive, and arrogant, way) none the less.

Here is the full paragraph that you edited out of your response:
“It appears that you want to dazzle the credulous with your research skills, even though, in this case, your research is mostly irrelevant. It’s almost half a page of padding. It reminds me of the old Russian saying, ‘If you throw enough bullshit against the wall and some of it will stick.’ That the actual answer to the question you were trying to answer comes from Chief Constable Grasett’s telegram (which I discovered), and this information is tacked on at the end, almost as a brief afterthought, tells me something about you. Apparently you feel the need to downplay the findings of others while, at the same time, highlighting your own extraneous research (presumably in order to “demolish” the other author’s works). Proof, apparently, that you don’t like to let the facts get in the way of a good “demolishing.” As I said, interesting.”

Allow me to add to this your statement that “I have not personally seen the original letter or the date on that letter but if there is a letter dated 4 October 1888 enclosing the extradition papers…” If. Yes, let’s throw some doubt onto the research of others. Let’s suggest that others are falsifying information because, apparently, this slur makes it easier for you to proclaim your own dazzling brilliance. Allow me to amend what I wrote above. “Apparently you feel the need to smear the findings of others while, at the same time, highlighting your own extraneous research (presumably in order to “demolish” the other author’s works). Proof, apparently, that you don’t like to let the facts get in the way of a good “demolishing.” You know “dickish” just doesn’t seem to even begin to scratch the surface of it.

As for your questions, surely you, David, with your omniscience and God-like abilities needn’t ask them. You can just divine the answers you want. How could you trust what I say anyway? However, I will answer them at a later date, after I’ve asked you some questions. Can’t say fairer than that.

You have gone badly wrong here Wolf due to an unfortunate failure to read and/or interpret my article properly. And you don't seem to know the difference in meaning between "the police" and "the authorities".

Two things of interest here. First, it seems that everyone who dares questions you has “gone badly wrong,” or has “missed the point,” even when you claim to have been “quite clear.” Re-read your posts to see how true this is. Once again, we rubes on the Casebook can’t seem to understand your brilliance. This must be so very frustrating for you. Second, you seem to hide behind semantics a lot. Tom pointed this out in an earlier post. Your attack on Jeff, with your “misunderstanding” of who he was talking about, is an embarrassing example. I suspect everyone who read Jeff’s post knew what he was talking about. Everyone, that is, but you, apparently. However, your halo slips quite badly when you resort to relying on the parsing of words to “demolish” questions posed by others.

I appreciate that you are desperate to find some sort of flaw or inconsistency in my trilogy but you clearly haven't found it here and, if I may say so, need to go back to the drawing board.

This last bit is odd since I posted, quite clearly I thought, that “Also, I’d like to explain the following post. It doesn’t deal with the “substance” of part 2 of your article (that will come later). Below are just a few things that stuck in my mind after I read Part 2. Things that offer a small glimpse into your personality.”

I’m not sure how much clearer I could be with “It doesn’t deal with the “substance” of part 2 of your article (that will come later). Below are just a few things that stuck in my mind after I read Part 2,” so this appears to be one of your little games. In this one you, David Awesome, can tell exactly what other lessor beings, such as myself, are thinking and how we’re reacting to your Awesomeness (or at least how you hope beyond hope that this is what we’re feeling). Sadly for you, however, I’m not at all desperate to find some sort of flaw or inconsistency in your articles. There are enough there to be surprising. But then again, what do I know? I’m not gifted with your superior abilities.

Wolf.

[David Orsam]

I suspect that everyone who is ever going to read the Suckered! Trilogy has now done so making this an academic exercise but I've concluded that I cannot say with any certainty that there would have been anything "unlawful" about Scotland Yard detectives hunting for evidence in America to support the Times' case - although I can see that an argument could certainly have been made that it was beyond their powers or remit which does come close to being unlawful - and in my state of uncertainty think that the safest thing to do is to delete this word from my trilogy which I have now done (replacing it with "secret" or "covert" as appropriate).

I have also made the drafting amendment foreshadowed in my response to Mike Hawley earlier in this thread and, keeping it simple, have merely deleted the two bits with square brackets round and highlighted in bold as below:

"Instead, as we have seen, Andrews entertained the Montreal reporters with a short update about Scotland Yard's investigation into the Whitechapel murders which was then misinterpreted as meaning that he was in Montreal to investigate those murders. According to the New York Evening World of 21 December 1888, in a story filed from Montreal on 20 December 1888, headlined 'An English Detective Coming Here In Search of Jack the Ripper'[, even though the article did not support this conclusion,] it was stated:

.....

The reporter [for the St Louis Republican of 22 December, whose report was also filed from Montreal on 20 December,] evidently got the wrong end of the stick when, in merging the earlier story about Jarvis and Shore looking for Irish Nationalists, he wrote, regarding what was clearly the same impromptu press conference, that: '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'. 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."

[David Orsam]

Who is defending Anderson?

Whomever wrote this gem—

" . . . Anderson was fully aware of the problems that would arise for him should he use C.I.D officers in America to assist the Times, so there was no point in him doing it and he did not do it."

Hi Simon,

Those words were written by me (the clue was the username in red at the top of the post) but I have no interest in "defending" Robert Anderson and am not defending him, any more than you were defending him earlier in this thread by saying that the allegation that British detectives were involved in a plot to blow up a steamer in New York harbour was "way off the Richter Scale" (#53). I am no more defending Robert Anderson than you would be if I claimed he was Jack the Ripper and you told me I was talking nonsense.

I have put forward a positive case that Anderson sent Andrews to Canada to escort Barnett to Toronto and Jarvis to North America to hunt for Barton. In the process, I have criticised you and Wolf for mistakenly saying he sent them on Parnell business and R.J. Palmer for mistakenly saying he sent Andrews on Tumblety research business. There is no "defence" of Anderson needed or attempted because there is no case against him. It is you who needs to defend yourself and your conclusions, but I note - as I'm sure everyone else has - that you refuse to do so.

As I have said repeatedly, but without challenge from you, Anderson had absolutely no need to send Scotland Yard detectives to America to assist the Times because the Times could hire their own detectives (who could be former Scotland Yard men, such as Moser) if they wanted to conduct investigations in America. It was not only pointless but self-defeating and stupid for him to do it due to the risk of exposure and the serious problems it would have caused for him which would probably have led to his dismissal from the force. So to repeat: there was no point in him doing it and he did not do it.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Who is defending Anderson?

Whomever wrote this gem—

" . . . Anderson was fully aware of the problems that would arise for him should he use C.I.D officers in America to assist the Times, so there was no point in him doing it and he did not do it."

Good to know.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

Further Response to Wolf

The theory that Inspector Andrews was in Toronto on Parnell business can be distinguished from the Tumblety/JTR theory in that it at least it has some evidence, in the form of supposed quotes in two newspapers from Andrews, to support it. However, there are two fundamental problems with this evidence:

1. The newspaper reporters were writing their stories in the very same context that Wolf has set out at some length. In other words, just as Wolf today seems to think that Scotland Yard detectives in America simply must have been investigating Parnell or Irish Nationalists, the very same thought evidently occurred to the newspaper reporters for pretty much the same reasons. Of course, they did not have access to the internal documents we have today but, frankly, those add little to what was believed at the time. In other words, in support of his view about what Scotland Yard was probably doing in 1888, Wolf is praying in aid reports from people who probably held exactly the same view as he does and whose reports might well have been coloured by that view. The evidence, in other words, needs to be treated with extreme caution.

2. If Andrews was engaged on a secret mission to uncover evidence about Parnell, the last thing he was going to do was tell a newspaper reporter. As Wolf himself says, this would have been "stupid". So – just as Wolf tried but failed to find a sensible explanation for him doing so – we need to work out what possible reason there is for the appearance of those quotes.

When we look at the actual words quoted of Andrews, further problems arise:

1. As I mentioned in my trilogy, the quote of Andrews in the Toronto Daily Mail, namely "I do not mind telling you that since I have been in Toronto I have obtained some important clues in the Parnell case - things I never dreamt of before" does not necessarily support the theory that Andrews had been sent to Toronto to find clues in the Parnell case. As I said in the trilogy, while Andrews was in Toronto, he could, unsolicited, have been given "clues" by citizens of Toronto, many of whom would no doubt have wanted to meet a real life detective from Scotland Yard and, indeed, pass any information they had to him. I want to make clear that my case as set out in the trilogy is that Andrews was not sent to Toronto for the purpose of investigating Parnell so that the Barnett extradition was not a "vehicle" or a "prop" or a "cover story" to conduct such investigations. That is very clear from the documents in the National Archvies. If a resident of Toronto had said to the inspector, "Joe Bloggs knows something important about Parnell" or "Joe Bloggs knows something about the identity of JTR", Andrews, being a detective, might well have gone to ask Joe Bloggs, assuming Joe Bloggs lived in Toronto, and reported back to his boss but that is completely different from the theory that Wolf and others have propounded.

2. In the Montreal Herald article, Andrews is quoted as saying that he cannot answer the reporter's question about whether he had been deputed by the London Times to collect evidence against Parnell and that he cannot divulge the secrets of his office. That being so, the following words "No I cannot deny the statement" simply must be a mis-quotation and no other explanation makes any sense. That only leaves the quote "I may not have been altogether unsuccessful, but I don't think I have been unsuccessful". The entire case rests on this! Did the journalist write it down correctly in his notebook? Was he even making notes at the time or writing from memory? Again, of course, it contradicts what Andrews had already been quoted as saying in refusing to give anything away. So the obvious conclusion, as I said in my article, is that Andrews did not say those exact words and the reporter, perhaps influenced by his own view of what a Scotland Yard detective would have been doing in Canada (as stated above), misunderstood him.

Of course, I basically said all of the above in my trilogy but Wolf has ignored this. Instead, he appears to have adopted a strategy of giving us political lectures and attacking me personally while avoiding the subject matter of my trilogy and refusing to engage in any form of constructive debate with me, having not responded to my posts in response to his last attacks. He could, for example, have answered the questions I posted in #286, which were bang on point, but has noticeably failed to do so. I repeat them in case he has forgotten them:

"1. Are you still saying that the Canadian Minister of Justice at any time refused to sign the extradition papers?

1a. If so, what is the evidence for this?

1b. If not, what was the "snag" on the Canadian end?

3. What evidence is there to support the claim in your article that the Canadians were "resisting"?

I surely don't [need] to point out that this is a substantive issue which goes to the heart of your claim that Inspector Andrews was being sent by Scotland Yard to Canada - in the face of Canadian resistance - to conduct Parnell inquiries. Your exact words were: "It was as if the authorities were making sure that Barnett was returned to Toronto even if the Canadians seemed to be resisting".

Do you now wish to retract those words?"

This is the kind of discussion we need to be having, not a long-winded essay on British or Irish politics which cannot possibly tell us what Andrews and Jarvis were doing in America in 1888. For that, we need to focus on the evidence in the case, which is what I have attempted to do throughout.

[David Orsam]

Who, here, is defending Anderson?

I was wondering the same thing myself.

[Mayerling]

Who, here, is defending Anderson?

Hi Hunter,

Search me. I have found little I can like in Sir Robert, except possibly his zealot - like patriotism, but God help us from zealots.

He was not the only British police official who went too far at times. In the 20th Century, a more intelligent figure, Sir Basil Thomson, made a career against suffragettes, German spies (a war-time necessity though), Sir Roger Casement (in the use of those "Black Diaries" to prevent a move for clemency from growing), his French allies (he questioned Mata-Hari, but apparently did not mention his suspicions to the French!), the British Labour Party (Thomson had some involvement in that "Zinoffiev" letter business in 1923). Later he wrote pro-Fascist, anti-Semitic articles, some for the "Whitehall Gazette" owned by Maundy Gregory (interesting choice for one of his allies there). Fortunately, while angling to become head of the Yard in 1926 he got caught in a rather stupid sex scandal. It finished his career as a police official.

Jeff

[Hunter]

Who, here, is defending Anderson?

[Phil Carter]

Hello Wolf,

Thank you for taking time to write these replies. I for one feel they are of import.

As you know, earlier in this thread I referred to other authors who wrote about the political shenanigans of certain members of the hierarchy of Scotland Yard...including Monroe and Anderson.

I believe I named Porter at some point..and the Clutterbuck thesis is of great import too.

There is another author..whose name escapes me at the moment..who also has written with great knowledge on the subject. NB EDIT. Alex Butterworth. The world that never was.

There is no doubt in my mind. .having studied just about everything I could about Anderson in particular. .that the man himself tried continously to create his own reputation through egoistic comment and action. In his autobiography..through his words.Anyone attempting to defend this man is, as much research by many has shown, now naive. That has an enormous bearing on any action we know he undertook.

Thank you again for your time in posting.


Phil