The 'Suckered!' Trilogy

[David Orsam]

Hi David, let's not get into semantics. An MP there is like a senator here, and I would call that an official.

Well, Tom, having said you don't want to get into semantics you then do exactly that by saying 'I would call that an official'. Labouchere had no official position whatsoever. I have to insist that it is just not legitimate to dignify Labouchere's allegations by saying they were made by an 'official person' as you did.

He certainly wasn't a nameless penny-a-liner, and he was someone who had something to lose by making false and serious allegations.

That's right, which is why he settled the libel action against him rather then be torn to shreds in the witness box in public.

Allegations that shouldn't have been terribly difficult to prove false.

That is quite wrong. Just think about the difficulties of having to prove a negative. It needs evidence and the only appropriate forum is a court of law. The Home Secretary and Commissioner stated as clear as it was possible to state that Jarvis had never been in Del Norte (or any of the other places alleged). It was up to Labouchere (or anyone else) to prove that he had been, which never happened. The government was not throwing empty buckets. They were responding in the appropriate fashion to ridiculous allegations over which they were under no obligation to waste any taxpayers money by spending any more time on them than was absolutely necessary.

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.

I can't see how Anderson writing anonymous letters to the Times, goading on Labouchere to substantiate or withdraw his allegations can lead to any conclusion other than that Anderson wanted to defend his department in public from the criticisms in a way which he could not do in his official capacity. By referring to 'Monro mysteriously resigning' you fall into the trap of thinking that his resignation had anything to do with the Jarvis allegations, for which there is not an iota of evidence, and it clearly had nothing to do with that at all.

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?

That's an easy one. I can say there are no grounds because there are no grounds. If there are any grounds, where are they?

[Tom_Wescott]

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.

It can be hard to prove a negative. But when someone is saying that you were somewhere for weeks or months at a time where you were not, that should be extremely easy to prove, and you wouldn't need a court of law to prove it. Labouchere's pathetic excuse that his sources were 'mistaken' is not at all convincing in light of his earlier appeal that Jarvis' backers should be willing to pay his losses when Labouchere won and his claims of conclusive evidence that unfortunately was never presented.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[David Orsam]

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?

Did you actually read my trilogy Simon? I have answered all that.

The quote that you produced from the Home Secretary confirms that he was not referring to Superintendent Shaw because he said that Shaw was an inspector in the Metropolitan Police Force. Without wishing to labour the point, Shore was a superintendent so the Home Secretary could not possibly have been speaking about him. As I explained in 'The Thomas Barton Affair', Sir Robert Anderson (who provided the Home Secretary's briefing note) evidently understood the question to be about Local Inspector Edward Shaw.

[David Orsam]

It can be hard to prove a negative. But when someone is saying that you were somewhere for weeks or months at a time where you were not, that should be extremely easy to prove, and you wouldn't need a court of law to prove it. Labouchere's pathetic excuse that his sources were 'mistaken' is not at all convincing in light of his earlier appeal that Jarvis' backers should be willing to pay his losses when Labouchere won and his claims of conclusive evidence that unfortunately was never presented.

No Tom, there was a specific allegation that on a single day (that was never accurately identified because it was said to be either the 20th or the 25th of December) Jarvis was in Del Norte. So, on your view, the government would have had to waste taxpayers money trying to work out exactly what Jarvis was doing and where he was on both of those single days. There was really no need to do this because the Home Secretary stated clearly that Jarvis had never been to Del Norte.

I have no idea why you refer to Labouchere's excuse that his sources were mistaken as unconvincing. The reason the 'conclusive evidence' was never presented was because it never existed. His talk of having his costs paid by Jarvis (or his backers) was nothing more than bluster. It was all just a lot of nonsense Tom.

[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.

Just repeating this for Simon Wood in case he missed it first time round.

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

Be assured. If I ever need patronising I'll hire a professional.

Oh yes, I read your trilogy, and fascinating it was.

"Sir Robert Anderson (who provided the Home Secretary's briefing note) evidently understood the question to be about Local Inspector Edward Shaw."

As you took nit-picking delight in pulling me up on partially misquoting Gilbert and Sullivan I will merely take this moment to mention that Robert Anderson was not knighted until 1901.

But no matter. Back to the plot.

Why would Robert Anderson believe a V Division Local Inspector had been accused of travelling to America on behalf of The Times?

Regards,

Simon

[Phil Carter]

Have you ever come across the tale of the political spin doctor who was quick to disclose to the world, through presentation and a portion of bring adamantly correct in all conclusions that others before him were actually the spin doctors?

I have. On many occasions. Both in national politics and even localised discussion. History is full of it. And behind every spin doctor lies a willing and silent backing.

Some would even call it adhesive propaganda. Sticks easily.

My personal opinion on this matter..not that it matters to some in the slightest..is that I like to think I read carefully before commenting. Sometimes I read things more than once in order to find a better meaning of the written piece. There is often much written between the lines.

David..your research is fascinating. Written in a style which impresses. And you are to be congratulated on the time, effort and product.

However. Although backing oneself to a certain degree is to be applauded, I opine that the use of "j'accuse" is over done. I could mention two or three well known authors of historical political happenings and behaviour whose reputations as researchers would also get torn to shreds if I mentioned their outstanding work and conclusions. Their books have been discussed on these boards. Neither directly related to JtR but directly relating to the machinations of both the politics and the involvement of Special Branch of the Victoria era.

This is just a personal opinion. It means nothing in the scheme of things. .There is no malice aforethought. No quasi behind the scenes reasoning..and no element of backing any particular horse of favouritism either.

I have the distinct feeling that because of the underlining taste of propaganda on my palate...my comments will not be welcomed with gusto. So be it. However.the impression..and I reiterate that. .The impression I am left with is that the force used in attacking is revealing..and does not further your presentation. IMHO. I will make no further comment to any reply you may or may not make..or anyone else for that matter..as I am just stating a reviewed opinion of your piece. You probably don't like it. But I only write of the picture I see painted before me. I hope that you can see it is written respectfully.



Phil

[Tom_Wescott]

No Tom, there was a specific allegation that on a single day (that was never accurately identified because it was said to be either the 20th or the 25th of December) Jarvis was in Del Norte. So, on your view, the government would have had to waste taxpayers money trying to work out exactly what Jarvis was doing and where he was on both of those single days. There was really no need to do this because the Home Secretary stated clearly that Jarvis had never been to Del Norte.

But how did the Home Secretary know this? Didn't he just ask?

I have no idea why you refer to Labouchere's excuse that his sources were mistaken as unconvincing. The reason the 'conclusive evidence' was never presented was because it never existed. His talk of having his costs paid by Jarvis (or his backers) was nothing more than bluster. It was all just a lot of nonsense Tom.

Then why did he make the claims? Simon accuses certain members of the police of colluding with the Times, and he provides motives. You accuse Labouchere of lying and defamation to the point he was being sued. So what was his motivation?

Regarding the American press. The Ripper was a big story in the states, but not so much Parnell. So why did so many reporters make up stories or put words in Andrews' mouth?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[David Orsam]

Phil - I hear what you say but I have my own writing and debating style which I like and I will stick to. This is not a personality contest and I'm sure that the truth - or at least the better arguments - will win out in the end.

[David Orsam]

As you took nit-picking delight in pulling me up on partially misquoting Gilbert and Sullivan I will merely take this moment to mention that Robert Anderson was not knighted until 1901.

Simon that is a good point and well made, and I will amend any unhistorical references in the trilogy accordingly.

[David Orsam]

Why would Robert Anderson believe a V Division Local Inspector had been accused of travelling to America on behalf of The Times?

It was not up Anderson to work out why bizarre accusations were being made against members of his department. He was providing answers to questions being asked of the Home Secretary.

And, in any case, the first question asked was: Was there an Inspector Shaw in the Metropolitan Police Force? The correct answer to this question was: Yes, there was an Inspector Shaw in the C.I.D..

Did Inspector Shaw go to Kansas or Del Norte? Answer, No.

If a member of Parliament wanted to know if Superintendent Shore had been to Kansas or Del Norte then that was the question they needed to ask.

[David Orsam]

But how did the Home Secretary know this? Didn't he just ask?

Tom, your questions are revealing that you don't understand how parliamentary questions work. Members of parliament ask questions of a member of the government, in this case the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary is unlikely to know the answers from his own personal knowledge so his private secretary asks the relevant officials who DO know the answers to provide them. Anderson provided the answers to the questions asked. The answers were very clear. Evidence is for a court of law or judicial inquiry.

Then why did he make the claims?

He was suckered.

Simon accuses certain members of the police of colluding with the Times, and he provides motives. You accuse Labouchere of lying and defamation to the point he was being sued. So what was his motivation?

He supported the Irish Nationalist movement. He was making political mischief. Throwing out allegations on the basis of flimsly or non-existent evidence or information. And please don't forget that Labouchere admitted that the whole thing was totally untrue.

The Ripper was a big story in the states, but not so much Parnell.

Not true Tom. It was a huge story in America.

[Tom_Wescott]

Tom, your questions are revealing that you don't understand how parliamentary questions work. Members of parliament ask questions of a member of the government, in this case the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary is unlikely to know the answers from his own personal knowledge so his private secretary asks the relevant officials who DO know the answers to provide them. Anderson provided the answers to the questions asked. The answers were very clear. Evidence is for a court of law or judicial inquiry.

I do understand that, but once or twice in this thread you said you knew that Labouchere was lying because the Home Secretary said it was not true, and that confused me, because as you say the Home Secretary could not have known this information. All he said he did was ask the very people most likely to deny the accusations and then report their denial. That's not an investigation.

And please don't forget that Labouchere admitted that the whole thing was totally untrue.

We all live in the same world and know there are other reasons why Labouchere would have changed his tune mid-song.

You call the accusations 'bizarre' but is it really bizarre to expect that inspectors would take advantage of an opportunity while being in America and/or Canada to investigate a hot button issue? Why is that so bizarre and unbelievable?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Robert]

David, I've finished your trilogy. Very impressive stuff! I'll leave the discussion to those versed in the intricacies, but it was a very interesting read and you have gone to great lengths to support your case.

[David Orsam]

All he said he did was ask the very people most likely to deny the accusations and then report their denial. That's not an investigation.

I'm sorry Tom, but you continue to show that you don't understand how parliamentary questions work. There is no 'investigation' involved in drafting an answer. The Home Secretary in 1888 was providing an official response on behalf of the government. For that response, he was given information by the person most likely to be able to answer the question accurately. In this case it was the Assistant Commissioner of the Criminal Investigation Department within the Metropolitan Police Force. For you to say that the A.C.C. was the person 'most likely to deny the accusations and then report their denial' is, as far as I am concerned, bordering on the ludicrous. But if you want to live in 'the Land of Conspiracies Around Every Corner', like Henry Labouchere, then fine but don't forget that Labouchere ended up being exposed to ridicule after making a humiliating climbdown.

We all live in the same world and know there are other reasons why Labouchere would have changed his tune mid-song.

I don't know of a single one Tom. Simon Wood has certainly never provided one. It is patently obvious why Labouchere withdrew his allegations. He explained it very clearly in his own journal and then again very clearly in his letter to the Times newspaper. They were false! If you keep effectively calling a liar on this then I have no idea how you can even begin to give credibility to his original allegations.

You call the accusations 'bizarre' but is it really bizarre to expect that inspectors would take advantage of an opportunity while being in America and/or Canada to investigate a hot button issue? Why is that so bizarre and unbelievable?

If you are talking about Labouchere here, that was not the allegation he was making. We do need to be clear about this. Labouchere never made any allegations of any investigations being made by Inspector Jarvis or Superintendent Shore. As I have outlined in my article the allegation was this:

"No sooner did Kirby disappear than Jarvis turned up to keep guard over Sheridan, and a short time after Jarvis withdrew."

THAT was the allegation, namely that Jarvis turned up to 'keep guard' over Sheridan. It was as bizarre as it was nonsensical. Clearly Jarvis never spoke to Sheridan because Sherdian would have said so. He was supposed to have kept guard over him from a distance of some miles from Sheridan's ranch for a short time then left. Madness! For Labouchere, this apparently showed that 'the Government were aiding and abetting in this intrigue to get hold of Sheridan'. But how does keeping guard over Sheridan become part of a plot to get hold of Sheridan? The whole thing is just utter nonsense from start to finish.

As you may be aware, the entirety of Kirby's plot to entice Sheridan to give evidence was exposed and his secret telegrams to Sheridan were published. Neither Jarvis nor any other Scotland Yard officer was mentioned in his communications.

Just to add that, in respect of Shore, all that was said by Labouchere was that he turned up one day to speak to Jarvis. So there wasn't even any allegation that he was involved in doing anything untoward at all, other than simply being in Kansas City.

Tom, you really need to give this up now because there is simply no hope for the line of argument you seem to be intent on pursuing.