The 'Suckered!' Trilogy

[David Orsam]

I have already posted the full text of Labouchere's letter to the Times but in view of baffling comments that continue to be made about his own retraction of his allegations against Inspector Jarvis, I think it is worth posting the full text of his statement published in his own journal, Truth, of 23 October 1890:


"On several occasions during April and May last I asserted, both in the House of Commons and in the columns of TRUTH, that Inspector Jarvis, of Scotland Yard, was, during the months of November or December, 1888, in the city of Del Norte, Colorado, and that he there saw Sheridan in connection with the inquiry before the Special Commission. Both Mr. Matthews and Mr. Monro denied that he was ever there. I then asked whether Mr. Jarvis would himself deny on oath the truth of my statement. To this Messrs. Wontner wrote on his behalf to say that he never saw, or even sought to see, Sheridan, and had no business in America, and conducted none, in reference to Sheridan or the Times, and added that he positively declares that he was never at Kansas City or Del Norte in his life, or within hundreds of miles of those places.

I replied to this that either Inspector Jarvis was there, or that it was “a strange and wonderful case of mistaken identity.” Messrs. Wontner on this issued, on behalf of Inspector Jarvis, a writ in an action for libel against me, and up to now the matter has been drawing on its weary legal way. I have, however, just ascertained beyond all doubt that Inspector Jarvis was, as a matter of fact, not at Del Norte, and that he consequently did not see Sheridan there, so that it was clearly “a strange and wonderful case of mistaken identity.” I, therefore, take the earliest opportunity of giving this explanation, and I unreservedly withdraw my original statement and offer my apologies to Inspector Jarvis."

[Abby Normal]

Hi David
Seems like no one has the stomach to want to debate you on the substance of your article.

And IMHO your style is fine and par for the course (and minus the personal stuff, which I commend you). Nothing wrong with being confident in your work and challenging people to prove you wrong.

Casebook can be a pretty rough place and I have see all these guys be brutally condescending, rude and dismissive to other posters who they deem not worthy of their ken. Except, Phil Carter, of course, who, shall we say, has a more "subtle" approach.

I guess they can dish it out, but cant take it. It will be interesting to see if any of them steps up to the plate and really wants to go toe to toe with you on the substance of your article-we might learn something new!!

Anyway-keep up the good work and I look forward to more of your work in the future. like I said before-your a breath of fresh air to this field and this noob has learned a lot from you already.

[Mayerling]

You keep throwing out 'conspiracy theory' as an insult, but the reality is we're talking about the police here. Anytime they investigate anything they are 'conspiring' to do so if more than one is involved in the investigation, as is usually the case. Therefore, if any investigation regarding Parnell took place, it was as the result of a conspiracy. You also keep suggesting that Simon and Wolf, et al invented the idea that various investigators looked for information regarding Parnell on behalf of the Times. If Simon or Wolf had pulled this out of their butt and put it out there as a theory I'd join you in slamming them down. But all of those accusations were made by contemporaries and are part of the historical record.

You say there's no 'gray area' but unless I'm mistaken, it has never been proved either way. Thus I say there's a gray area. Even if you're correct about Jarvis (and a forced admission is hardly proof of that), that has no bearing on Andrews, et al. There's an awful lot of smoke, and you might right to say there's no fire, but have you proved it as you say?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hi all,

I have to step back for a moment to get some clarification here on "conspiracy theory" regarding Scotland Yard activities.

Are we (or - to be fair - contemporaries of these events) assuming that the Yard was determined, come "hell or high-water" to crush Charles Stewart Parnell in the parliamentary investigation into " 'Parnellism' and Crime" started (ironically given this look at Labouchere and "Truth" regarding Jarvis) the "Times" of London's newspaper series in 1887? In that case, is the conspiracy an unfair (or seemingly unfair) investigation into the matter by the Yard - without planning to try to use their investigation to clear Parnell of the charges? Or is it a conspiracy based on the Yard and it's allies knowing ahead of time that the letters that were the basis for the charges by "The Times" were forgeries by Richard Pigott, and deciding to find as much dirt about Fenian/"Invincibles" (don't forget the letters defended the Phoenix Park Assassinations)/Irish-American Nationalist activities to create a poisonous atmosphere to enable the forgeries to escape detection by Parnell's allies (which they didn't)?

Which of these is supposed to be the "police conspiracy"? I suspect that the police would have supported the Parnell inquiry as it was a government sponsored inquiry, and that as a branch of the government's Home Office they would have felt obliged to investigate the matter as deeply as possible. The fact that Robert Anderson was now in the Yard makes one suspect that that experienced spy master from Dublin was surely keen (as he later admitted) to help the inquiry. But does that really make it a conspiracy? Actually all it makes it seem is that it is a trifle unfair, that's all. But let's face realities - every police organization has to owe allegiance to the governing bodies above it, unless it knows that that government is doing something illegal (i.e. the Watergate Scandal). So this matter of definition really should be settled here.

Jeff

By the way, thanks Simon for the three replies you gave to my earlier statements. I rarely count these messages and responses, but it was gratifying to see the number. And your responses were quite helpful.

Jeff

[Tom_Wescott]

Tom, you have misunderstood. There's nothing wrong with a conspiracy theory if it is properly researched and based on evidence and, preferably, true. That is not the case here.

Surely, if it's demonstrably true, it ceases to be a theory and becomes fact, doesn't it?

The point I'm making is that if you want to put forward a conspiracy theory, which by definition makes serious allegations of a conspiracy, it needs to be well founded. If not, you open yourself to a demolition. Stephen Knight's Final Solution was a great read but, as Simon Wood tells us, "elaborate balderdash", just like Simon Wood's own arguments funnily enough.

Here's the difference. You're telling us it is 'fact' that none of these investigators did any work for the Times, etc. Simon is telling us it's 'possible' that they did. So Simon is selling me a theory to consider, but you're forcing your perspective as absolute fact. Claiming that you've proven something is not the same as actually proving it.

That is just so wrong it's not even worth me responding to but I guess it explains why you appear to have fallen for all this nonsense. Please look up the word 'conspiracy' in the dictionary Tom.

Your repeated approach is of the 'you're either with me or against me' ilk. You're not satisfied that I (and others) are not fully swayed by either your or Simon's argument, so you say that if I'm not as convinced as you are, then I must be convinced by Simon. You ignore the fact - and it is a fact - that neither of you have conclusively proven your side which is why there's a continuing debate and the subject has lent itself to ongoing publications from several authors.

This is true (unless an individual officer was doing it on own accord) but only because an investigation into Parnell on behalf of the Times by Scotland Yard officers in America would have been illegal.

And because it's illegal it didn't happen? People don't do illegal things? Then why was there a police force at all?

No such suggestion has been made by me Tom. I couldn't care less if they pulled these theories out of their butt or they were handed down to them by The Archbishop of Canterbury. They published their articles, I read them, realised they were wrong, researched them and demonstrated that they were wrong.

You keep saying you demonstrated they were wrong, but saying it and doing it are two different things. And I'll mention again that Simon and Wolf didn't invent the accusations. They were made by contemporaries of the men accused. You'd have to prove these contemporaries wrong in order to 'demolish' the argument.

I'm saying you are mistaken Tom. It's clear you have read my articles - possibly skimmed them - but not really understood them.

Perhaps you should rewrite them into something more cohesive and less personal.

In what way was Labouchere's admission "forced"? Who forced him to make it? It's what I mean about you not understanding. There was nothing forced about it at all. It was made voluntarily. He didn't have to publish his apology in Truth. He could have defended the allegations in court but, of his own free will, he chose not to. There was nothing forced about his letter to the Times. No-one was standing over his shoulder. To say that his admission/retraction was "forced" is, I regret to say, just the type of nonsense I am talking about when I refer to nonsensical conspiracy theories.

You've been telling us what an insane asshat Labouchere was and how he was bound and determined to go to desperate measures for his causes, but then you expect us to accept that, hat in hand, he willfully and of his own accord apologized? Why, because he's a nice and honest guy and not because he was compelled to do so? Which is it?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Jeff, good post. David is the one using the term 'conspiracy theory', so he'd have to answer that. I'm as lost as you as to how an investigation becomes a 'conspiracy' except in the way that it means two or more people 'conspired' towards the same thing.

David continuously compares Simon's chapters on this to Stephen Knight's book, which is built largely on fabricated 'facts' and the statements of a non-contemporary. I don't see the comparison, unless David is suggesting Simon fabricated some of the information he's using to build his case.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[David Orsam]

Abby - Thank you. Your good sense and understanding of what is going on in this thread is much appreciated.

Jeff - Tom refers you to me but I am going to have to refer you to Simon Wood and/or Wolf Vanderlinden to make it clear precisely what they are alleging. All I know is that the allegation is that a number of senior Scotland Yard officers were engaged in some form of illegal activity in America on behalf of the Times.

[David Orsam]

Tom, a general response before I do the very dull point by point reply thing.

I'm fully aware of what you are saying and have said in just about every post so far. It is that on the one side there are some arguments and on the other side there are some counter arguments and, that being so, it is simply impossible to decide where the truth lies. Well, Tom, the thing about being human is that we have judgement and sometimes we need to use it to make decisions based on evidence. I believe I have put forward a compelling case that Inspector Andrews was in Toronto to bring Roland Barnett to justice and Inspector Jarvis was in the U.S. and Canada to bring Thomas Barton to justice and that this is all they were doing. If you do not find it compelling that is fine and up to you but if the only point you want to make is that you cannot decide between the two arguments then I think I've got it, and probably everyone else has do. That being so, are there any specific points in my trilogy that you want to challenge?

[David Orsam]

Surely, if it's demonstrably true, it ceases to be a theory and becomes fact, doesn't it?

Somehow you have added the word "demonstrably" to my statement that it is preferable that conspiracy theories are true. In any event, the logic of your argument seems to be that there is no difference between conspiracy theories that are false and conspiracy theories that are true. Or are you saying that every conspiracy theory is by definition false because if it was true it would not be a theory?

Here's the difference. You're telling us it is 'fact' that none of these investigators did any work for the Times, etc. Simon is telling us it's 'possible' that they did. So Simon is selling me a theory to consider, but you're forcing your perspective as absolute fact. Claiming that you've proven something is not the same as actually proving it.

You know what Tom, I don't remember Simon Wood using the words "it's possible" at all. Indeed, a search of the word "possible" in his Smoke & Mirrors article brings up no hits. Certainly, my impression from his writings was that everything was an established, nay obvious, fact. That is why it needed to be demolished.

Your repeated approach is of the 'you're either with me or against me' ilk. You're not satisfied that I (and others) are not fully swayed by either your or Simon's argument, so you say that if I'm not as convinced as you are, then I must be convinced by Simon. You ignore the fact - and it is a fact - that neither of you have conclusively proven your side which is why there's a continuing debate and the subject has lent itself to ongoing publications from several authors.

What is this "continuing debate" you speak of Tom and where do I find it? All I'm reading in this thread is bluster and hot air.

And because it's illegal it didn't happen? People don't do illegal things? Then why was there a police force at all?

You've lost me Tom. I agreed with you that if the police conspired to commit illegal acts then it would have been a conspiracy. The reasons I am saying it did not happen in America in 1888 are fully set out in my trilogy.

You keep saying you demonstrated they were wrong, but saying it and doing it are two different things.

I agree with you Tom, which is why I demonstrated it over three long articles.

And I'll mention again that Simon and Wolf didn't invent the accusations.

And I will repeat that I don't care who invented them. All I know is that Simon and Wolf published them.

They were made by contemporaries of the men accused. You'd have to prove these contemporaries wrong in order to 'demolish' the argument.

But Tom, as I have said repeatedly and you don't seem to absorb it, Labouchere fully withdrew the accusations in respect of Jarvis.

You've been telling us what an insane asshat Labouchere was and how he was bound and determined to go to desperate measures for his causes, but then you expect us to accept that, hat in hand, he willfully and of his own accord apologized? Why, because he's a nice and honest guy and not because he was compelled to do so? Which is it?

The first thing I see here, Tom, is that you completely ducked my questions. I will repeat them:

In what way was Labouchere's admission "forced"? Who forced him to make it?

If you genuinely want to debate this, can you give me the answers?

As for your question. The answer has already been provided to you and I am astonished that you fail to grasp it. Labouchere was not compelled to do anything. He was about to begin his defence of a libel action brought by Inspector Jarvis. He decided of his own free will and presumably of sound mind to settle that action by paying Jarvis a sum of £100, paying his legal costs and making a full written apology. The reason why he decided to settle the action is perfectly obvious and was stated by Labouchere himself, namely that the allegations he had made against Inspector Jarvis were completely untrue and without any foundation. It's not a question of him being "a nice honest guy". It's a question of him suddenly realising that his allegations were untrue and he could not support them in a court of law. What is so difficult to understand about that? (genuinely, I want to know.)

[Tom_Wescott]

Abby - Thank you. Your good sense and understanding of what is going on in this thread is much appreciated.

Translated: Thank you for reading my essays but not the works I'm 'demolishing' and taking my word for it that they're full of bunkum.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Wickerman]

Hi David
Seems like no one has the stomach to want to debate you on the substance of your article.

And IMHO your style is fine and par for the course (and minus the personal stuff, which I commend you). Nothing wrong with being confident in your work and challenging people to prove you wrong.

Casebook can be a pretty rough place and I have see all these guys be brutally condescending, rude and dismissive to other posters who they deem not worthy of their ken. Except, Phil Carter, of course, who, shall we say, has a more "subtle" approach.

I guess they can dish it out, but cant take it. It will be interesting to see if any of them steps up to the plate and really wants to go toe to toe with you on the substance of your article-we might learn something new!!

Anyway-keep up the good work and I look forward to more of your work in the future. like I said before-your a breath of fresh air to this field and this noob has learned a lot from you already.

I'll second that!
It is refreshing to read such a well presented analysis.

[David Orsam]

David continuously compares Simon's chapters on this to Stephen Knight's book, which is built largely on fabricated 'facts' and the statements of a non-contemporary. I don't see the comparison, unless David is suggesting Simon fabricated some of the information he's using to build his case.

I'm not going to argue whether Knight's book was built "largely" on fabricated facts nor am I going to argue whether the Labouchere allegations against Jarvis, which Wood relies on, were fabricated or just mistaken but either way he should never have relied on them. And let's check the dictionary:

Elaborate - Highly developed or complicated.

Balderdash - Jumble of words, nonsense.

So Wood's criticism of Knight's book as 'elaborate balderdash' does not imply that fabricated evidence was used, nor does my criticism of Wood's arguments as 'elaborate balderdash' carry any such implication.

[David Orsam]

Translated: Thank you for reading my essays but not the works I'm 'demolishing' and taking my word for it that they're full of bunkum.

That can't be the correct translation Tom because only yesterday I wrote:

"I encourage as many people as possible to buy Simon Wood's book, as I did, because they will see the absence of evidence to support his allegations, if they can even work out what the allegations are, and it will be obvious which one of us is right."

Perhaps you missed it.

[Tom_Wescott]

Tom, a general response before I do the very dull point by point reply thing.

I'm fully aware of what you are saying and have said in just about every post so far. It is that on the one side there are some arguments and on the other side there are some counter arguments and, that being so, it is simply impossible to decide where the truth lies. Well, Tom, the thing about being human is that we have judgement and sometimes we need to use it to make decisions based on evidence. I believe I have put forward a compelling case that Inspector Andrews was in Toronto to bring Roland Barnett to justice and Inspector Jarvis was in the U.S. and Canada to bring Thomas Barton to justice and that this is all they were doing.

This is the most even-handed thing you've said. If your essay had been written in this tempered tone it would have been more successful.

If you do not find it compelling that is fine and up to you but if the only point you want to make is that you cannot decide between the two arguments then I think I've got it, and probably everyone else has do.

That's the point is that an open-minded person would have to say it's not a closed matter. If someone feels that Simon has proved his case, they're wrong. Same with you. We each have to decide for ourselves which is more likely. Your essays have a huge amount of fat that could be trimmed and then more easily digested. Once that's done you might just sway me. Simon's is an easier read and there's certainly nothing novel about the concept of these cops doing something they shouldn't to suit their own ends (look at the Cleveland Street scandal).

That being so, are there any specific points in my trilogy that you want to challenge?

Yes, the most significant part, where you say you have proved that these detectives did no extra work while in America. That just doesn't jive in all the cases with how long they spent there and what was reported in the American press at the time. Even if 95% of the press reports were wrong, that 5% means you're wrong as well.

Also, the 'I HATE SIMON' T-shirt you sent me shrunk in the washer. I want a refund.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Wickerman]

Translated: Thank you for reading my essays but not the works I'm 'demolishing' and taking my word for it that they're full of bunkum.

Tom, I think the floor is open to challenge what David has written.
There doesn't appear to be a queue.

[David Orsam]

I'll second that!
It is refreshing to read such a well presented analysis.

Thank you Jon, it is very encouraging that so many people have felt this way.