The 'Suckered!' Trilogy

[David Orsam]

Wolf,

I don't know if you have finished with your responses now but one thing that might be helpful is if you were to set out which points from my trilogy, if any, you agree with and which points you disagree with. In particular, is there anything in your Ripper Notes articles that you wish to amend or withdraw in the light of my articles?

This is, I think, the proper way of going about things.

[David Orsam]

In the end even a cursory look at the historical record shows that David’s articles abjectly fail to offer an objective, balanced or reliably researched look at the anti-Parnell political actions of men like Monro and Anderson, let alone the actions of their political masters in the government. In effect David has swept history under the rug rather than offer context to articles which he is attempting to “demolish.” Probably cause and effect.

I am completely objective, balanced and unbiased - and have been throughout - and my research is fully reliable.

If I were to sum up your posting it is basically that you don’t need evidence of anything. Monro and Anderson were so committed to the anti-Fenian cause that they would do anything and there is no allegation that we should not be prepared to believe believe regardless of whether there is evidence to support it and regardless of how ridiculous that allegation might be. I do not accept that is the correct way of looking at the issue. I am fully aware of the political context but that does not, by itself, offer any help with the specific cases we have been discussing.

[David Orsam]

Secondly, Anderson himself wrote that he had used “extra-legal action” when dealing with Anarchist’s threats in Britain: “I am clear that the measure of peace & order wh[ich] we have been able to maintain in recent years has been due to action taken by this dep[artment] wh[ich] seems applicable to it…The experience of all the years during wh[ich] I have held my present office [i.e., since August 1888] has been this: For more or less prolonged intervals these men [foreign anarchists] have been treated under the ordinary law, with the invariable resu[l]t that they have assumed a menacing attitude, and taken to dangerous plots. Then some “extra-legal” action has been adopted by the Police, & they have at once grown quiet & timid.” [Robert Anderson memorandum to Commissioner Edward Bradford, London Metropolitan Police, 14 January 1899, TNA: PRO HO 45 10254 X36450/92]

I'm aware of this memo (quoted regularly by Simon Wood) and have inspected the original file in which it can be found, which is labelled "EXPLOSIVES: International Action for the suppression of anarchism". Anderson's memo, written more than ten years after the events of 1888, is about anti-terrorism measures and has no relevance or application to the issue of Scotland Yard assisting the Times in respect of the Parnell Commission.

[David Orsam]

Andrews was travelling around Southern Ontario performing, as he himself stated, a similar task (Andrews stated that this was what he was doing in southern Ontario. His own words, freely given. End of story).

This is the only point you have made that I see as in any way relevant to the discussion but it is clearly not the end of the story, even on your own account. I remind you that in Ripper Notes (24 October 2005, p. 39), you said:

"The question remains: Why if he was on a secret mission, would Inspector Andrews be indiscreet or stupid enough to tell newspaper reporters what that mission was?"

It is a question for which we have both provided answers and I suggest to you that my answer is far more convincing than yours. In fact, yours is utterly implausible. In any event, the simple fact of Andrews’ two reported interviews clearly isn’t the end of the story as you conceded in your own article.

[David Orsam]

in order to embrace the idea that this could never happen you have to completely ignore the historical record and disregard the inconvenient facts which point to illegal work by high ranking officials in the Government and Scotland Yard to aid the Times against Parnell and the Irish cause (something which David has chosen to do).

I have never said "it could never happen". I am saying, on the basis of the evidence, that it did not happen in this instance, in respect of Andrews and Jarvis.

[David Orsam]

Wolf,

I have read your long post (#421) and nothing in it was new to me or assists in our understanding of the specific missions of Inspector Jarvis and Inspector Andrews in North America.

The simple point is that, in respect of the Parnell Commission and related matters in America, the Times employed their own private detectives. Officers from Scotland Yard, who had no more authority or power in America than a private detective could not usefully add anything to what the Times could achieve. Furthermore, 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.

You are basically making the exact same point that the humiliated Labouchere made after he was forced to apologise: Scotland Yard did some things so it’s fair to say they did some other things. Not a good argument at all.

I will pick up some of your specific points separately.

[David Orsam]

David, who tells us that he worries so about history (and distortions to history and how he must protect history at all costs) doesn’t even mention Evans and Gainey’s names let alone discuss their theory. For some reason he sees the most significant and widely known theory as being unimportant.

Why is any of this important? The three theories that David attempts to “demolish” in his articles all stem from Evans\Gainey or from Stewart Evans himself. Their theory stems from news reports that date from 1888. David, apparently, doesn’t want the casual reader of his articles to know about this.

I’ve heard of obsession but this is ridiculous. I’ve already answered your irrelevant Evans/Gainey point more than once. If you are not absorbing or understanding it then it really is your problem not mine.

[David Orsam]

By “an area of history” I assume you mean the politics of the LVP and, specifically, Scotland Yard and British policing as it pertained to the Irish Question

Incorrect.

You are going to have a very busy time of it writing numerous articles “demolishing” “the ideas that you have been advancing” since the political situation, including the Irish Question, has been part of the Whitechapel Murders conversation since the time of the murders themselves.

You have misunderstood me. I was talking about the missions of Inspector Jarvis and Inspector Andrews in North America and their consequences, a subject not traditionally associated with the Ripper murders. Certainly not in any of the many books I read during the 1980s and 1990s (which went back to Leonard Matters’ 1929 book) which were focussed almost entirely on the identity of Jack the Ripper. So I fear your entire post was a waste of time.

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Here’s some context:

I suppose that some might question exactly why Inspector Andrews would be sent to Southern Ontario on behalf of the Times. Especially when this would suggest a conspiracy involving who knows how many people. However, in order to embrace the idea that this could never happen you have to completely ignore the historical record and disregard the inconvenient facts which point to illegal work by high ranking officials in the Government and Scotland Yard to aid the Times against Parnell and the Irish cause (something which David has chosen to do).

Some of this is well known such as Robert Anderson’s use of Government intelligence documents to write part of the Parnellism and Crime series for the Times in 1887. This act was considered so egregious that it almost cost Anderson his pension when, in 1910, some 23 years after the fact, he admitted doing it.

There is an interesting addendum to the above political brouhaha. Robert Anderson’s old friend, boss and ally, James Monro, using a circuitous route, was able to pass a note to Herbert Asquith, the Prime Minister, in which was stated:
“Mr. Monro is desirous that the Home Office should be made aware that should they desire to ‘interview’ him, any account which he might be able to give of certain past events (and which might not agree with some things which have appeared), he is at their disposal.” [Christy Campbell, Fenian Fire, Harper Collins Publisher, London])

“any account which he might be able to give of certain past events (and which might not agree with some things which have appeared), is an apparent warning to the Powers That Be that should he, Monro, suffer further scrutiny, or inquiry, on the matter of Anderson, the Times and Parnell, he could open a can of worms which was best left untouched. Or, as Campbell puts it, the note hinted “at something nasty in the Whitehall woodshed.”

Keeping with Monro: ignored by those who disbelieve in Scotland Yard actions against Parnell are various political activities which took place during Monro’s tenure as head of Special Branch. For example, according to William Henry Joyce, a sub-inspector in the Royal Irish Constabulary who, while in this position, aided the Times’ case during the Parnell Commission (see Irish Historical Studies, 1973, Dublin University Press), and was therefore in the thick of things in 1888, threats and inducements were offered to Fenian prisoners held in British jails.

Thomas Scott and Michael Harkins, the Jubilee bombers, were interviewed by Littlechild in Chatham Jail, in March of 1888, in order to try and get them to give evidence linking Parnell and his supporters with the bomb plots. Littlechild was also said to have made another prison visit to interview an Irishman named Thomas Clarke who would claim that Littlechild offered him his freedom if he would testify against Parnell. Littlechild also spied on Parnell’s personal life, writing reports on the Irish leader’s affair with Kitty O’Shea. The O’Shea affair would eventually lead to Parnell’s downfall. And, as I have already pointed out, it was even suggested by Sir Charles Russell, later Lord Russell of Killowen, Parnell’s chief counsel, that the reason Richard Pigott was able to so easily disappear from London and make his way to the Continent was that he had been hustled out of the country by two Scotland Yard detectives. Joyce, also, says as much.

These were all politically motivated actions aimed at aiding the Times’ case against Parnell, or at harming Parnell personally, and perpetrated by Special Branch and Scotland Yard while headed by Monro. Monro would have known about, and would have had to sanction, all of these. However, Monro didn’t have the authority to offer pardons and cash incentives to convicted terrorists. Who did?

In the autumn of 1888 it was decided by certain high ranking members of the British Government that, along with Henri Le Caron, British double agent General Francis Millen should be encouraged to travel from New York to London in order to give testimony against Parnell at the Commission. The man who was Millen’s handler in the U.S. was William Robert Hoare, the British Consul at New York, who was reluctant to comply. Millen, a high ranking Clan na Gael member, was just too important an intelligence asset to be burned so that a privately owned newspaper could win its case. His inside knowledge was invaluable and irreplaceable. British Government officials saw things differently.

Cables flew back and forth across the Atlantic while notes and messages were passed in London. Among those Government officials who were involved in attempting to illegally provide evidence for the Times newspaper against a democratically elected sitting member of Parliament were: the Chief Secretary of Ireland, Arthur Balfour; Deputy Permanent Under-Secretary at the Foreign Office, Sir Philip Currie; The Prime Minister himself, Lord Salisbury and the head of Special Branch, one James Monro. Christy Campbell, writing in Fenian Fire, goes so far as to state “There was an intense round of meetings in Whitehall [regarding Hoare’s obstinacy in not providing Millen for the Commission]. Monro was clearly up to his ears in it.” (My underline.)

As well, professor Bernard Porter describes the reaction of the Home Office when the Parnell Commission was called into being. They were against an open public hearing, stating “if there have been any questionable proceedings on the part of the Government or Police Agents, these might come to light in the course of the trial with damaging consequences” (my underline). As Porter states, “This suggests at the very least that the Home Office were not confident that everyone around them had clean hands.” [Bernard Porter, Origins of the Vigilant State: The London Metropolitan Police Special Branch Before the First World War, Boydell & Brewer, 1987.] “Police Agents” in this context very much suggests Monro’s Special Branch. Why would the Home Office worry about their activities in connection with an open public commission on Parnell if Scotland Yard was so politically blameless? Why was the H.O. unsure of what was going on in their own bailiwick?

Porter offers a simple see no evil, hear no evil, and speak no evil reason that might apply: “…One reason why the Home Office, for example, seems to have taken very little interest in the detailed activities of its political intelligence sections may have been to avoid embarrassment. If a Home Secretary was wise enough to know no evil, then when he was questioned about it in the Commons he could tell no lies.” [Porter, Origins of the Vigilant State.]

So what was Robert Anderson’s role in all of this? Anderson, the man whom Henry Mathews described as “a tout for the Times.” The man, who in 1888, had over 20 years of anti-Irish-Nationalist secret work under his belt, in both Dublin and London, while being the head of CID at Scotland Yard for only a matter of weeks. The man who seemingly hated Parnell with an overwhelming passion. The man who used secret intelligence, which was bought and paid for by the British public and not his to reveal as he wished, in order to attack Parnell and the Irish Party in the Times.

T. M. Healy, K.C. (editor of The Freeman newspaper) said of Anderson: “British interests necessitated secrecy as to spies, but Anderson cared little for that, provided Parnell could be discredited. Beach, therefore, was shipped from the U.S.A., and became the “star” witness at the Commission. To tender such an agent as a witness to help a newspaper was a step unprecedented.” [T. M. Healy, K.C., Letters and Leaders of My Day, Thornton Butterworth Ltd., 1928.] Indeed.

In fact although it is said that Anderson didn’t want Beach to appear before the Commission Anderson, according to Beach himself, summoned him to his house, while he was in England for the funeral of his father, in order to tell him that the Times was looking for someone to testify at the Commission. [Peter Edwards, Delusion, Key Porter Books, 2008.]

This seems to have been a fishing expedition on Anderson’s part and whether he was gauging Beach’s reaction to the information or telling him to find someone to testify is not clear. Either way, Anderson, the head of the CID, was attempting to personally find a witness or witnesses to appear against Parnell, and in support of the Times. And he was doing this at the exact same time, mid-December, 1888, that Inspector Andrews was travelling around Southern Ontario performing, as he himself stated, a similar task (Andrews stated that this was what he was doing in southern Ontario. His own words, freely given. End of story).

T.P. O’Connor said of him: “…Sir R. Anderson is an Irishman and a Unionist....He has the most violent political prejudices. These prejudices are so strong, and I am sure so honest, that they blind him very often to all the difference between what is right and what is wrong in the conduct of his fellow-creatures, and often to his own attitude towards those who have the misfortune to differ from him…. You will find in all his writings and all his proceedings he is constantly haunted and beset and obsessed by what I may call the policeman's spirit, and above all the secret service spirit.” [Hansard, 21 April, 1910, vol. 16 cc2335 – 435.] This needs no comment.

Stewart Evans, writing on Casebook, has stated: “… But Anderson was a very political animal and in no small way very bigoted. It was a major part of his makeup and must be assessed with all other aspects of the man to decide upon his true nature and the veracity of his word…. As we know Anderson was obsessively opposed to the Irish Nationalist MP Charles Stewart Parnell and the Home Rule Movement….When Anderson wrote of these matters in Sidelights on the Home Rule Movement [1906] he sought to shift the onus for the main letter incriminating Parnell back to Parnell by claiming it was not forged by Piggot. Anderson wrote, ‘And as regards the Parnell 'facsimile letter' of May 15, 1882, I have received definite confirmation of my statement that it is in the handwriting of Arthur O'Keefe. I have obtained further proof, moreover, that at that period O'Keefe was employed by Mr. Parnell as an amanuensis.’ This statement disagrees with the verdict of history…”

In other words Anderson was still attacking Parnell, and using an out and out lie to do it, some 17 years after the end of the Commission (Sir Robert Anderson? Lying?). Stewart also pointed out that, in 1888, Anderson “…was far more concerned with the Special Commission than the murders.”

Still, it has been asked, why would Monro and Anderson send Andrews to Southern Ontario on what has been termed an illegal political mission?

First of all, it must be understood that both Anderson and Monro had been privy to Thomas Billis Beach’s intelligence regarding Parnell and the Irish Nationalist movement. They knew that in a meeting between Parnell and Beach held in London in 1881, Parnell had stated: “…I have long since ceased to believe that anything but force of arms will ever bring about the redemption of Ireland….He told [Beach] that he did not see any reason why an insurrectionary movement, when we [American Irish Nationalists] were prepared to send money and men who were armed and organized – why a successful insurrectionary movement should not be inaugurated in Ireland…He stated what the [Land] League could furnish in the way of men and money, and informed me as to the assistance which he looked for from the American [Land League] organization….You furnish the sinews of war. You have the power…” [Edwards, Delusion] This meeting was held just as the “land war” in Ireland began to intensify; just before the Phoenix Park Murders and just before the start of the bomb attacks in Britain when the “sinews of war” seemed to have been tensing and stretching.

As Martin Fido points out, “Parnell was having his cake and eating it: acting the pacific constitutional agitator for Home Rule within the Union when in England; declaring himself an independent separatist who condoned violence when appealing to firebrands in America. Anderson took and retained very full notes of this information.” [Martin Fido, Anderson, Monro and Jsfmboe, Ripperologist #80, June, 2007.]

Most people, when mentioning Beach’s career, usually fail to mention this highly significant interview with Parnell. An interview that provided proof to men like Anderson and Monro that not only was Parnell out to destroy the Union but that he also secretly supported terrorism. Also usually ignored is the fact that Beach’s testimony at the Parnell Commission regarding this interview was deemed of great importance. Fido states, “history tends to have forgotten that Beach’s accusations stuck and were accepted as findings against Parnell in the committee’s final report.” [Fido, Anderson, Monro and Jsfmboe.]

Parnell was blamed, in part or in whole, for supporting acts of Irish terrorism by pro-British, anti-Irish-Nationalists, like the Times, James Monro, Robert Anderson and conservative elements within the British Government. The belief that these men wouldn’t gather intelligence against Parnell for the Times because it was illegal or morally wrong, or because they just wouldn’t do such an underhanded thing, is laughably uninformed. This was politics wrapped up in patriotism. Good versus evil. British Civilization versus Irish Chaos. In other words, this was war by other means.

Porter states: “The object of all this [police and government dirty tricks aimed at discrediting Parnell] was not primarily to put down terrorism, but to try to discredit the cause of Home Rule and its supporters. The distinction is important. Home Rule, pursued through peaceful, parliamentary means, was a legitimate political policy, and the policy (as it happened) of two of the main parties in Parliament. Opposition to home Rule was the policy of two others. Here, then, we have one of the earliest examples in modern British history of a phenomenon we shall see more of as our story progresses: secret agents with particular political viewpoints, probably in collusion with like-minded politicians, using the apparatus of the secret state for partisan ends. This is new. The rationale for it, as in later examples, was that those ends – the maintenance of the Union and the defeat of separatism – were not really partisan, but patriotic. That feeling may have been genuine.” [Bernard Porter, Plots and Paranoia: A History of Political Espionage in Britain 1790 – 1988, Routledge, 1989.]

Secondly, Anderson himself wrote that he had used “extra-legal action” when dealing with Anarchist’s threats in Britain: “I am clear that the measure of peace & order wh[ich] we have been able to maintain in recent years has been due to action taken by this dep[artment] wh[ich] seems applicable to it…The experience of all the years during wh[ich] I have held my present office [i.e., since August 1888] has been this: For more or less prolonged intervals these men [foreign anarchists] have been treated under the ordinary law, with the invariable resu[l]t that they have assumed a menacing attitude, and taken to dangerous plots. Then some “extra-legal” action has been adopted by the Police, & they have at once grown quiet & timid.” [Robert Anderson memorandum to Commissioner Edward Bradford, London Metropolitan Police, 14 January 1899, TNA: PRO HO 45 10254 X36450/92]

So Anderson clearly used illicit police methods when it suited him – when peace and order were threatened and dangerous plots had to be stopped – and he boasted that such methods worked effectively. What plots more dangerous than the bombing campaigns had Britain faced? What greater threat to peace and order than the possible dissolution of the country? Who did Anderson feel was complicit in both? Would the ultra-Unionist Robert Anderson fail to use “extra-legal” means to obtain his political ends?

Or, instead, are we to believe that men like Monro and Anderson were simply a troop of inexperienced Boy Scouts. Babes in the woods of the murky late Victorian politics of Empire. Men so honourable, blameless and guileless that they were incapable of any sort of underhanded or devious practice; no matter the threat, situation or cause? At best this “belief” is farcically naïve.

In the end even a cursory look at the historical record shows that David’s articles abjectly fail to offer an objective, balanced or reliably researched look at the anti-Parnell political actions of men like Monro and Anderson, let alone the actions of their political masters in the government. In effect David has swept history under the rug rather than offer context to articles which he is attempting to “demolish.” Probably cause and effect.

Wolf.

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

David.

One of the main flaws in your articles is the total lack of objectivity. There are no shades of grey with you, no nuance or subtlety. Everything is either black or white. You are right, your opponent (and you apparently see other theorists as your opponent) is wrong. I suppose that this is symptomatic of someone attempting to “demolish” the thoughts and ideas of others. You really can’t afford to offer both sides of the argument because that would detract from your supposed superiority. That would never do. This probably explains why you offer no background or context in your articles. An undereducated reader is your target audience and so the fairly obscure world of Victorian politics plays right into your hands.

It’s also possible, I suppose, that your grasp of this subject might be a little shaky. Hard to say whether your naïve support of Robert Anderson’s reliability is genuine (Proof? What proof? He denied it and he would never, ever tell a lie) or just a ploy to help you “demolish” concepts and ideas which are actually supported by historical facts.

With the idea that education is better than obfuscation I here offer a little chronology and context to my articles which may help others (obviously not you, of course) to understand why the theory exists that things might not have been all that they seemed in late 1888.

In December, 1888, Inspector Andrews, when interviewed by newspapers in Canada, stated that, while in Southern Ontario, he had obtained information pertaining to the Parnell case and generally confessed that that was the reason for his mission while in Canada. One of these newspapers, the Toronto Daily Mail, was Canada’s largest and most respected paper with a readership country wide. It was a pro-British, pro-Empire, conservative paper not given to sensationalism. This interview was picked up, added to, and reprinted across North America. The story eventually made its way back to London where questions about Inspector Andrews’ trip were raised in Parliament.

In 1928 Guy Logan stated in Masters of Crime [Stanley Paul & Co. Ltd. London] that “The murders ceased, I think, with the Miller (sic) Court one, and I am the more disposed to this view because, though the fact was kept a close secret at the time, I know that one of Scotland Yard’s best men, Inspector Andrews, was sent specially to America in December, 1888, in search of the Whitechapel fiend on the strength of important information, the nature of which was never disclosed.”

In 1995 Stewart Evans and Paul Gainey published The Lodger, The Arrest & Escape of Jack The Ripper [Century Ltd. London] In it they proposed that Dr. Francis Tumblety was Jack the Ripper; that he was able to evade completely incompetent Scotland Yard detectives on more than one occasion and easily slip through their bungling fingers and escape back to America. “He was Scotland Yard’s most wanted man and was soon to be followed to New York by a posse of Yard men headed by Inspector Andrews.”

The authors theorise that Inspector Andrews was the man in charge of investigating Tumblety “from an early stage” and that is why he was forced into “chasing him across the globe in a last-ditch attempt to retrieve the situation.” Unfortunately for the Yard men Tumblety once more flew the coop and they were forced to return to London empty handed.

At the end of the book, Evans and Gainey offer a list of 15 “factors pointing to [Tumblety] being the killer.” Factor 9 is “One of the three detective inspectors assigned to the Ripper hunt, Walter Andrews, was sent with other officers to pursue him to New York.”

The Evans/Gainey theory explaining Inspector Andrews trip to Southern Ontario, and its supposed connection with Tumblety, is nearly universal in works regarding the quack doctor’s candidacy for being the Ripper. It appears in numerous books, articles, television documentaries, and across the internet. It is a central plank in the Tumblety as Ripper theory. Over the years the theory has been added to and expanded slightly as new facts were uncovered. For example, the curious facts surrounding the arrest and extradition of Roland Gideon Israel Barnett have been examined and suggestions that there was some manipulation by Robert Anderson and others, in order to send Andrews to Canada, have been posited.

David, who tells us that he worries so about history (and distortions to history and how he must protect history at all costs) doesn’t even mention Evans and Gainey’s names let alone discuss their theory. For some reason he sees the most significant and widely known theory as being unimportant.

Why is any of this important? The three theories that David attempts to “demolish” in his articles all stem from Evans\Gainey or from Stewart Evans himself. Their theory stems from news reports that date from 1888. David, apparently, doesn’t want the casual reader of his articles to know about this.

As Stewart Evans is the preeminent man in Ripperology, the very top point of the Ripperological pyramid, it’s probably hard to “demolish” articles that are based on his works and theories. Better that the works being “demolished” come only from “conspiracy theorists” whose ideas lack any evidential basis (according to David).

However, my articles were based partly on Stewart’s earlier work but mostly on Inspector Andrews’ own words as to what he was doing in Southern Ontario. David strongly disagrees with both of these sources. He knows better than Andrews himself what he was doing that winter in Canada.

So that was a little chronology.

Wolf.

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Hi David.

This, obviously, will seem like a response from the distant past. Sorry, it couldn't be helped.

“but Simon Wood and Wolf Vanderlinden have gone far wider than simply discussing JTR and have moved into an area of history that is not traditionally associated with the Ripper murders.”
“…Indeed, 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.”

By “an area of history” I assume you mean the politics of the LVP and, specifically, Scotland Yard and British policing as it pertained to the Irish Question (which, apparently, we peons aren’t allowed to discuss according to you, the Great Arbiter and Saviour of History). After I stop laughing, allow me to point out a few things.

You are going to have a very busy time of it writing numerous articles “demolishing” “the ideas that you have been advancing” since the political situation, including the Irish Question, has been part of the Whitechapel Murders conversation since the time of the murders themselves. And, whether through ignorance of this fact or not, your statement that this area is “not traditionally associated with the Ripper murders” is woefully uninformed.

Conspiracy theories? There are indications that police officials at Scotland Yard believed that the Whitechapel murders might have been part of some political attack against the establishment. Intended, perhaps, to embarrass the Metropolitan Police, Lord Salisbury’s Tory Government or perhaps the Jewish community (religious and/or politically secular) in London’s East End. We know that Sir Charles Warren theorized that the murders were the work of “secret societies,” i.e. underground political groups. In Warren’s case he seems to have thought that left wing immigrant political groups may have been involved [See HO/144/220/A49301.D]. There are several theories based on this idea and so a whole grab bag of left wing political organizations have come under scrutiny by the Ripperological community over the years. There have also been suggestions that Czarist Russian agents committed the murders for political ends. These theories usually are connected to the possible actions of Special Branch [see the works of William Le Queux and Donald McCormick for examples]. I don’t need to go into to whole Royal Conspiracy Theory do I? Incidentally, Stephen Knight’s book is the bestselling book on the Ripper murders of all time. It makes my two articles seem like pretty small beer so, if you were looking to save history, you might want to start here.

However Irishmen, because extreme Irish nationalists had already used terror in their campaigns, and the Irish Party were, we know, also suspected by Scotland Yard. And since 1995, largely because of the Tumblety theory, first proposed by Stewart Evans and Paul Gainey (which, apparently, you are only vaguely aware of), further interest in an Irish connection has appeared.

The late Lindsay Clutterbuck, a serving Special Branch Officer, pointed out, after looking through the closed Special Branch files, that Special Branch “had more than a passing interest” in the Whitechapel Murders Investigation and that “The proposition that there was a possible Irish suspect for these murders is not as incongruous as it seems….and there are more relevant entries in the Chief Constable's Register.” Both Clutterbuck and Trevor Marriott offer some examples of Irish suspects which Special Branch were asked to investigate. [See Clutterbuck, An Accident of History?, June, 2002, Doctoral thesis, University of Portsmouth.]

Melville Macnaghten apparently suspected an Irish extremist, “the leader of a plot to assassinate Mr. Balfour at the Irish Office” [Douglas Browne, The Rise of Scotland Yard; A History, 1956, George G. Harrap & Co. Ltd.], likely John Walsh (member of the Irish Republican Brotherhood, the Irish Invincibles and the Clan na Gael) of being the Ripper. Clutterbuck supports this idea, mentioning “an extreme Irish nationalist [who was] suspected of being ‘Jack the Ripper.” Other Irishmen have been put forward as Macnaghten’s suspect including Dr. Hamilton Williams and P.J.P. Tynan.

There is also in existence a Metropolitan Police crime register index, which states, under the heading Crime, General, the notation “Whitechapel Murder Suggested Complicity of Irish Party.” The “Irish Party” was Charles Stewart Parnell’s Irish Parliamentary Party and so this index would seem to indicate that there was some suggestion that the IPP, or elements within it, were possibly connected with the Whitechapel Murders.

Politics is very much mixed up in the history of the Whitechapel Murders and always has been. You’d better get writing.

Wolf.

[Mayerling]

Hi Jeff,

What you seem to be saying is that a background check in Toronto was important just in case something turned up in London which might indicate that Tumblety was JTR and which might lead to Scotland Yard commencing extradition proceedings of Tumblety from the USA.

I'm saying that this was not how Scotland Yard operated and they did not carry out such (academic) research on suspects not in custody or not about to be charged. Once Tumblety was in custody, or even in the jurisdiction, such research might possibly make sense but the fact that Tumblety was in the USA when Andrews arrived in Toronto is fatal to the notion that Andrews was doing any research on Tumblety because it would have been a complete waste of his time, especially when any relevant information could have been communicated to London by cable or post by the Toronto police.

In any event, I am saying that there is no way that Anderson could have known or suspected prior to 29 November 1888 that Tumblety had anything to do Toronto so the above point is itself academic unless the argument is that Anderson wanted research carried out into Tumblety by Scotland Yard officers in every city in North America.

Hi David,

Your response is fair enough. Problems with hypotheticals - they do get complicated after awhile.

Thanks again.

Jeff

[David Orsam]

So, Jonathan H has made his last post on the matter and it is a very interesting one.

He tells us that Palmer’s trilogy is "one of the great long essays written on this subject" which "exhibits the highest standards of historical scholarship."

It is strange, therefore, that, in his post, Jonathan completely ignores the document which Palmer categorically states is "one of the key documents, if not the key document" (Palmer Trilogy, part 2, p.74). This, Palmer tells us, is Robert Anderson's letter to the Home Office dated 19 November 1888. According to Palmer, this letter "has gone missing" but I found it in the National Archives. Far from supporting Palmer’s claim that, in this letter, Anderson "inquired about the feasibility of sending a man to North America and was further asking whether he could use the extradition of the prisoner Roland Barnett to do it", he does no such thing and the letter simply shows that Anderson was corresponding with the Home Office about the procedure to extradite Roland Barnett to Canada at the request of the Toronto police.

Despite, Palmer being "the greatest living writer on this subject" (as Jonathan told me in another thread in February), Jonathan evidently does not think much of Palmer’s argument that Anderson got his information about Tumblety’s connection with Canada from a New York newspaper because he now speculates that Tumblety himself was Anderson’s source. Thus, he says, "We do not know what Dr. Tumblety told the police about himself when they had him", the implication being that Tumblety told the British police he had recently been in Toronto.

It is rather unlikely that Tumblety would have told the police anything considering that they were not allowed to question a suspect after they arrested him but had they managed to extract such irrelevant information from him on the gross indecency charge – which must have been at some point on or before Tumblety’s appearance before a magistrate on 7 November 1888 – an urgent cable to the Toronto police requesting information on a Dr Francis Tumblety would surely have sufficed.

According to Palmer, Anderson had no problem contacting San Francisco for information about Tumblety on or before 23 November so why not Toronto? If a "discreet background check" was so important, why not do it immediately rather than hang around waiting to see if the Canadian authorities might be prepared to pay for an officer to be sent over to Toronto and then wait a further period of time for an officer to sail slowly out there?

Jonathan is surely aware of this which is why he includes the sentence: "Especially if police could clarify, face to face, whether they think this is Jack, or not". But "face to face" with whom? Could Anderson or Andrews seriously have expected that a Scotland Yard inspector was going to be able to clarify in Toronto whether Tumblety was JTR? And how is this consistent with a "discreet background check"? It seems to have now become a full-on investigation in a foreign country!

Jonathan talks about hindsight and the pressure the police were under but seems to forget that, after Tumblety’s committal for trial on 14 November, Anderson would have expecting his trial to occur on or immediately after 19 November, at which time Tumblety could have been acquitted and walked free (and then left the country). It is easy now to think that Anderson had until the middle of December to do anything but that was not how he would have seen it at the time, in early-to-mid November, when Tumblety's trial would have been fast approaching. So any inquiries about Tumblety had to be made as a matter of urgency. There was simply no time to mess about with the slow and uncertain extradition process involving Barnett.

Earlier in this thread, Jonathan told me that "in the great British tradition of we'll give it a go and see what turns up, Andrews went" (#391). But Palmer’s argument, which Jonathan loves so much, is that "Walter Andrews was specifically sent to North America to investigate Ripper suspect Francis Tumblety" (Palmer Trilogy, part 1, p. 33), that the Roland Barnett case was "the vehicle” for sending Andrews to North America" (part 1, p.45 & part 2, p.88) that Scotland Yard were using the extradition of Roland Barnett as "a convenient prop" (part 2, p.69). We don’t get this from Jonathan’s post, no doubt because it is obvious from the evidence I have presented that Walter Andrews was sent to North America to escort Roland Barnett to Toronto. What we now see is a heavily modified version of Palmer’s argument, namely that an extra task was sort of tagged onto Andrews’ mission. Basically "while you are out there, see if you can dig up anything on Tumblety". It’s very different from what Palmer was saying.

Yet, we find serious contradiction and confusion at the heart of Jonathan’s post as to what was going on.

Earlier in this thread, Jonathan made a very clear statement to me about Walter Dew’s memoirs. He said:

"When Dew mentioned Andrews as a one of the three key Whitechapel detectives (Swanson was not a field detective) he meant the trip abroad" (#379).

In other words, Jonathan was there accepting that, until he was sent abroad on 29 November, 1888, Andrews was NOT one of the three key Whitechapel detectives and only became one due to his supposed mission to investigate Tumbelty.

Yet, Jonathan, in his most recent post, says: "Yet Andrews was one of the three, key Whitechapel field detectives according to Dew. So why send Andrews to Canada on an errand in the middle of the Terror when that might trigger another backlash either from the state or the press - or both?" He then provides some long quotations about the pressure Scotland Yard was under, apparently to show that Anderson could not afford to send one of his key Whitechapel detectives to Canada, so that Andrews’ mission must have related to the Whitechapel murders.

The contradiction is obvious. If Andrews was not yet working on the Whitechapel case, there would have been no problem in him going to America. Scotland Yard had far more than three inspectors at its disposal.

In any case, as Andrews told the press in Montreal, there was only "one inspector" assigned to the case with lots of more junior detectives. No-one in 1888 was arguing that every single Scotland Yard inspector should be devoted to solving the Whitechapel murders at the neglect of all other police work. So there never would have been any "backlash" from the state or from the press regarding a single inspector being sent to America just as there was never a backlash about Inspector Jarvis going off to chase Thomas Barton.

The argument that Dew’s inclusion of Andrews as one of the troika was a result of his trip to Canada is inconsistent with the argument that Andrews could not have been spared to go to Canada because he was one of the troika.

When it comes to evidence to support the notion that Andrews was sent to Toronto to do a background check on Tumblety, we don’t find any in Jonathan’s post. All we get is a reference to "Multiple newspaper accounts in different countries" which claimed that Andrews was "pursuing a prime Ripper suspect to North America". There is no acknowledgement, however, that all these accounts can be sourced to the single incident at the Montreal Police Headquarters when Andrews undoubtedly gave the press some information about the JTR investigation in London which was transmorgified into a story that Andrews was chasing a suspect in America, when he clearly was doing no such thing.

Jonathan concludes that his theory is based on "contradictory data" without making clear what the "data" is in support of his theory (despite me having requested a number of times for him to do so).

Back in February, he told me on another thread that I should get hold of Palmer’s trilogy and Wolf Vanderlinden’s essays and that: "You will then come to your own conclusion as to who is probably correct in their examination of the primary record".

I did get hold of both works and discovered that neither of them were correct in their examination of the primary record. Palmer’s trilogy may or may not have been "beautifully written and judiciously argued" but what I failed to find as I read through his full trilogy was any evidence at all that Andrews was doing anything Tumblety related in Toronto. I did, however, find a series of misunderstandings. Comments such as

"under the auspices of the Fugitive Offenders Act, it was entirely up to the Canadians to come and fetch Barnett." (part 2, p.67) - This is factually incorrect.

"it is clear from Lushington’s letter that Robert Anderson had inquired about the feasibility of sending a man to North America and was further asking whether he could use the extradition of the prisoner Roland Barnett to do it." (part 2, p. 75) - It is not "clear" at all and is disproved by the contents of Anderson's letter.

"A critical point is that at this stage the negotiations that would eventually bring Inspector Andrews to Canada were still ongoing. The authorities in Toronto, blissfully unaware that Barnett’s extradition papers had been filed in London on November 6th, were still scrambling to get Barnett’s extradition in order". (part 2, p.88) – This so called "critical point" is not factually correct.

One factually correct statement we do find in Palmer’s trilogy is this:

"Not a single known document filed at the C.I.D. or forwarded to the Home Office reveals what Andrews was actually investigating."

The reason for this is that Andrews was not actually investigating anything. He was escorting a prisoner to Toronto under standard extradition procedure.

[David Orsam]

For the sake of completeness or even possible future criminal prosecution (as was prepared for Deeming had his trial for the murder of his second wife in Melbourne resulted in acquittal) was necessary.

As you point out, since Anderson did not move "heaven and earth" to extradite Tumblety nothing of importance must have been revealed. Yes, that is true. However, more subtly, it turned out to be true. When Andrews went to Canada Anderson would not have known if it was going to turn out to be true.

Hi Jeff,

What you seem to be saying is that a background check in Toronto was important just in case something turned up in London which might indicate that Tumblety was JTR and which might lead to Scotland Yard commencing extradition proceedings of Tumblety from the USA.

I'm saying that this was not how Scotland Yard operated and they did not carry out such (academic) research on suspects not in custody or not about to be charged. Once Tumblety was in custody, or even in the jurisdiction, such research might possibly make sense but the fact that Tumblety was in the USA when Andrews arrived in Toronto is fatal to the notion that Andrews was doing any research on Tumblety because it would have been a complete waste of his time, especially when any relevant information could have been communicated to London by cable or post by the Toronto police.

In any event, I am saying that there is no way that Anderson could have known or suspected prior to 29 November 1888 that Tumblety had anything to do Toronto so the above point is itself academic unless the argument is that Anderson wanted research carried out into Tumblety by Scotland Yard officers in every city in North America.

[Jonathan H]

This is my last post on this matter as it is a dead end, and has been several posts back.

The sterility of the line of reasoning is chilly to the point of arctic. The dismissal of sources, and interpretations of ambiguous primary sources, as worthless, irrelevant and incomprehensible -- and if not understood ipso facto worthless--is reductionist and ahistorical.

Just for the record I think that R. J. Palmer's trilogy "Inspector Andrews Revisited" is one of the great long essays written on this subject, or at least about a knotty aspect of this subject.

It is beautifully written and judiciously argued. It exhibits the highest standards of historical scholarship whilst conceding it is a provisional interpretation of limited and contradictory material. Anybody has the prerogative to read it and to not be persuaded.

Multiple newspaper accounts in different countries, at the time, claimed that Andrews was really digging dirt against an Irish thorn in the side of the establishment or that he was pursuing a prime Ripper suspect to North America.

It is possible that all these newspaper accounts are equally spurious, opportunistic and hollow.

What Palmer established, for me, was the nuts and bolts of the political context that made it very unlikely that Parnell was the real object of Andrews' trip nor that the English detective was in any melodramatic sense 'chasing' Dr. Tumblety to New York City. Yet Andrews was one of the three, key Whitechapel field detectives according to Dew. So why send Andrews to Canada on an errand in the middle of the Terror when that might trigger another backlash, either from the state or the press - or both? Anderson had the negative example of his own sojourn abroad (and the delicious meal made of it by the unsympathetic London press).

Something much less dramatic was happening, Palmer argues, e.g. a background check to do something -- and do something discreet and on the cheap -- because CID, the Home Office and the government were all under tremendous pressure because of the Ripper scare. At this distance that pressure is not so easy to quantify from mere [official] documentation. Both Anderson and Macnaghten, who never mention Dr. Tumblety, are in rare unanimity in their respective memoirs about this strain on law enforcement:

Sir Robert Anderson, "The Lighter Side of My Official Life", 1910

"The second of the crimes known as the Whitechapel murders was committed the night before I took office, and the third occurred the night of the day on which I left London. The newspapers soon began to comment on my absence. And letters from Whitehall decided me to spend the last week of my holiday in Paris, that I might be in touch with my office. On the night of my arrival in the French capital two more victims fell to the knife of the murder-fiend ; and next day's post brought me an urgent appeal from Mr. Matthews to return to London ; and of course I complied.

On my return I found the Jack-the-Ripper scare in full swing. When the stolid English go in for a scare they take leave of all moderation and common sense. If nonsense were solid, the nonsense that was talked and written about those murders would sink a Dreadnought. ... I spent the day of my return to town, and half the following night, in reinvestigating the whole case, and next day I had a long conference on the subject with the Secretary of State and the Chief Commissioner of Police. "We hold you responsible to find the murderer," was Mr. Matthews' greeting to me. My answer was to decline the responsibility. " I hold myself responsible," I said, " to take all legitimate means to find him." But I went on to say that the measures I found in operation were, in my opinion, wholly indefensible and scandalous; for these wretched women were plying their trade under definite Police protection."

Sir Melville Macnaghten, "Days of My Years", 1914

"At the time, then, of my joining the Force on 1st June 1889, police and public were still agog over the tragedies of the previous autumn, and were quite ready to believe that any fresh murders, not at once elucidated, were by the same maniac's hand. Indeed, I remember three cases - two in 1888, and one early in 1891, which the Press ascribed to the so-called Jack the Ripper, to whom, at one time or another, some fourteen murders were attributed-some before, and some after, his veritable reign of terror in 1888. ... when the double murder of 30th September took place, the exasperation of the public at the non-discovery of the perpetrator knew no bounds, and no servant-maid deemed her life safe if she ventured out to post a letter after ten o'clock at night. And yet this panic was quite unreasonable.Many residents in the East End (and some in the West!) came under suspicion of police, but though several persons were detained, no one was ever charged with these offences."

Understandably such external and internal pressure could trigger improvised and even desperate responses to it by police officials, with the English need not to appear desperate and the bureaucratic need to be deniable. Such responses have to be discerned from scraps and glimpses, because real people with real world problems are involved. And personal failure is never something people like to advertise, in any era.

We do not know what Dr. Tumblety told the police about himself when they had him, temporarily, in their clutches (except that he, obviously, did not confess). As Mayerling pointed out, Tumblety then fled at the height of the murders. It is only hindsight that the scare was about to subside, at least for six months. Whereas in late 1888 CID were faced with the following questions: what if the Irish-American was the culprit, and then again what if he wasn't? Is his jumping his bail of no consequence to the Ripper inquiry, or is it the ultimate public relations blunder? What if he kills somebody abroad?

Doing a discreet background check on this prime suspect in one of his recent haunts, one within British imperial jurisdiction, is a perfectly plausible and well-argued theory. Especially if police could clarify, face to face, whether they think this is Jack, or not. This discreet dividend from having a Whitechapel detective escort Barnett somewhat backfired because the US press instantly assumed it was Ripper connected, and consequently hyped this mission as a hot pursuit (therefore an utter failure if you do not return with this suspect in manacles) whilst other tabloid organs, even more excruciatingly, linked it to the Irish struggle.

The above is a theory based on limited and contradictory data. It might be wrong (maybe it was, quite recklessly, about Parnell after all, and everybody went into lock-down denial for the rest of the natural) but my judgement, the judgment of a single person, is that Roger Palmer is probably right. I am certainly not committed to absolutes, and neither is the author.