The 'Suckered!' Trilogy

[David Orsam]

I don't remember David's article containing all the Labouchere revelations that I'm reading in your book

I think I covered the so called 'Labouchere revelations' in considerable detail but I welcome you refreshing your memory.

[David Orsam]

Hunter - Thank you, greatly appreciated.

Mike - Are you saying you think have found two material errors in my trilogy or do you mean minor mistakes like the date of the Montreal Herald article?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Tom,

Thank you.

I'll be happy to clarify any sticking points you may discover.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

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

[Tom_Wescott]

Let's take Jarvis. For some reason, this bloke interests me the most. It seems that whichever side you fall on you have to choose to dispose of a certain amount of information. On the one hand you have a stack of press reports and officials persons suggesting or outrightly stating he was in the States digging up Parnell material. On the other side you have press reports and officials stating he most certainly was not. It's nice to have a lot of material to draw from (a rarity in Ripperology) but a bit frustrating when it all contradicts.

Then in the modern day you have folks who no matter what seem to accept the police word on something.

And you have people who no matter what disbelieve anything the officials have to say.

That makes it quite easy for those two camps, but for the rest of us it's not quite so easy, and that's probably why I've dilly-dallied over the years. As I write this though I'm leaning towards believing the police were up to something where Parnell was concerned. That's largely because the men making the denials were Spymasters Monro and Anderson, and Monro's resignation at that time is highly suspicious, and Anderson was writing his Curious letters and whatnot. So how much can we trust their denials? Having said that, I agree with David that some of those press reports sound phony as all get out.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[David Orsam]

On the one hand you have a stack of press reports and officials persons suggesting or outrightly stating he was in the States digging up Parnell material

Hi Tom - can you identify any of these 'official persons' (not Irish Nationalists) who suggested or stated that Jarvis was in the States digging up Parnell material?

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Tom - can you identify any of these 'official persons' (not Irish Nationalists) who suggested or stated that Jarvis was in the States digging up Parnell material?

Labouchere and whoever was backing him up.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Simon Wood]

Hi Tom,

Some US press reports sound phony as all get out?

I couldn't agree more.

The one detailing a British plot to blow up a ship in New York harbour goes way off the Richter Scale.

Hence the observation in my book that perhaps this story was an impromptu piece of Irish Nationalist propaganda whipped up to paint the British government as completely ruthless in the lengths to which it was willing to go to destroy any possibility of Home Rule for Ireland.

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

Not one of them could state as a definitely ascertained fact that on such and such a date in December 1888 Inspector Jarvis could not have been in Kansas, Denver or Del Norte because a report he filed definitively placed him elsewhere. Likewise with Shore. Surely Scotland Yard could have rustled up a story of him being involved in, say, the London arrest of cat burglar Fred Blenkinsop on Christmas Eve.

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

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

Labouchere and whoever was backing him up.

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

[Tom_Wescott]

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

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

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[David Orsam]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Simon Wood]

Hi Tom,

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

Regards,

Simon

[Tom_Wescott]

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

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

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

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[David Orsam]

Why not just prove the matter?

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

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

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

Hansard, 11th March 1890—

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

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

Regards,

Simon