The 'Suckered!' Trilogy

[Jonathan H]

Religion? Faith?

And shaky pillars of faith, at that.

David, you have got that all round the wrong way.

You see, people who say that they cannot agree to disagree--no, no, no, it has to be agreement--are the ones exhibiting a doctrinaire attitude.

People who say they are 100% certain (about historical opinions at least) are sliding into faith-based ways of thinking or feeling. Because they were not there. How then can they be 100% if they were not there?

To use an old-fashioned designation you write like a whiz kid; e.g. somebody very talented and quite young. There's nothing wrong with youth. But there are disadvantages to it too. A rush to judgment, for one, and a difficulty with cohabiting with rival theories for another

I'm not doctrinaire. I believe in provisional opinions about incomplete material. I have advocated such an approach for years and frankly been pilloried here for it.

That's why I posted Calvin Trillin's "The Buffs", as a brilliant essay in itself but also a cautionary warning about falling into partisan, fetishistic and emotive modes of thinking that replace rational, objective analysis.

I think it is more likely that in 1888 Dew knew exactly what Andrews was up to, and maybe he chose to include Andrews in his memoir reference because of the Canadian trip (without indiscreetly saying so). It was very likely a mission that was improvised and perhaps doomed, due to being short on time, funds and opportunity. But in the great British tradition of we'll give it a go and see what turns up, Andrews went -- straight into a public relations buzzsaw. ****-ups by organizations (sir, what exactly am I supposed to find out in Toronto? You'll know when you get there) are par for the course. As it was, the Andrews trip was a public relations debacle on multiple fronts.

The primary sources of 1888 to 1891 show that Mary Jane Kelly was not believed at the time to be the Ripper's final victim e.g. an orgy of post mortem violence that cracked open Jack's mind like a warm, boiled egg. The killer was, in fact, assumed to be still out there poised to strike again. After a longer than expected interval, he did seem to kill again in July 1889.

Assuming Dew did not mean the Canadian fizzer, why would Anderson, who was under such tremendous pressure, take Andrews off the Whitechapel investigation in 1888--at the very height of the Terror? With no sense that it had concluded with the double event or Kelly. I do not think he would have, not unless escorting the prisoner gave them cover to deny they were doing a background check (I do not mean, however, the trip would have happened without Barnett). Andrews' alleged denial to a reporter in Canada is, for me, tellingly over-emphatic; a tremulous glimpse into the acute embarrassment that trailed the Irish-American absconder for CID.

You say I don't deal with certain aspects. But neither do you.

I warned you against defying common sense and the world of real people, and thus ending up in Buff-world, but you ignored all that. I warned you against the sterility of absolutes and you have ignored that too.

You have the right to ignore it.

But its a bit rich, young man, to then say I am ignoring stuff you bring up.

Logan's claiming that the murders stopped with the flight of the suspect abroad is not from newspaper accounts of 1888 and 1889. Quite the opposite, as ÚS newspapers were trumpeting Tumblety's innocence because subsequent murders in Whitechapel 'cleared' him. The short-lived 'autumn of terror' was a handy, retrospective myth invented by Macnaghten, who is pals with Sims, who knew Logan. This is a textual theme, or meme, that first appears many years later in the extant record (in 1898).

That's the second time I have written about this aspect, there will not be a third.

You allege that I have a spiritual need, or bias, or both, to have Andrews investigating Tumblety?

Another nonsensical mistake, mate.

I have written a book claiming that another suspect was believed by a contemporaneous police chief to be the fiend. That suspect had been deceased for several years. It does not really help my argument if there was a living, prime suspect who was so hot in 1888 that a top field detective was hunting his antecedents across the seas. Especially as my top copper did not even start on the Force until months after Tumblety had fled.

Better for my thesis that Tumblety wasn't much chop, and Andrews was just escorting Barnett (or digging up dirt on Parnell). Examining the evidence as best as I can I do not think, rightly or wrongly, that this was so. The argument put by Evans and Gainey and later refined by Palmer still holds sway for me.

Could be I wrong? Sure. I often am. Could you be?

[mklhawley]

I don't think in those terms Jonathan. I have done the research, certainly without any bias and actually, at the start, looking for any evidence at all to justify the Andrews/Tumblety thesis - because I quite like the Tumblety-as-suspect idea - but not finding any and coming to the very firm conclusion that, actually, the whole idea is complete nonsense.

But therein lies the reason why there will never be an 'agree to agree', not based upon our bias, but based upon how your evidence does not logically follow to a conclusion of "the whole idea is complete nonsense". This is illogical since, no less than three Scotland Yard officials refer to Tumblety as a suspect. Littlechild stated Tumblety was 'amongst the suspects'. Sims would not have been asking Littlechild about the case if Littlechild was not 'in the know'. He could not have been a minimal suspect for Littlechild to have recalled so vividly years later.

Lastly, Assistant Commissioner Anderson telegraphed at least two US chiefs of police on suspect Francis Tumblety. The Brooklyn report came from the Associated Press, not some potentially biased individual newspaper. Simon is wrong that the reporter did not mean the Ripper case (because it was only in the headline, not the body). I will later demonstrate that the editor of an individual newspaper does not add their own headline. The Associate Press reporter, who was privy to the cable, wrote the headline.

Go ahead and argue that this is all not direct evidence, because we don't have the actual cable, that's not my point. My point is your conclusion is 'complete nonsense', and this is not supported.

Monty: What everyone forgets about Walter Dew is a few paragraphs later in his memoirs, he brags about his unusually gifted memory. I argue that Tumblety was the hot topic in the detective division in November and December 1888. Three Scotland Yard officials comment on the very same November/December chain of events. You don't think the detectives in Whitechapel would hear about Scotland Yard's overall Whitechapel investigation? Not likely.

Sincerely,

Mike

[mklhawley]

Let me rephrase the headline point. Individual editors had the opportunity to rephrase the headline, but there was indeed a headline that came with the cable, and in this case, it was Tumblety involved in the Whitechapel case, not the gross indecency case.

[Trevor Marriott]

Let me rephrase the headline point. Individual editors had the opportunity to rephrase the headline, but there was indeed a headline that came with the cable, and in this case, it was Tumblety involved in the Whitechapel case, not the gross indecency case.

What headline would sell the most papers?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[David Orsam]

Yes, policemen talk amongst themselves, be that in the mess, recreation room, down the pub or whilst in the reserve room, however not sure press reports would be of interest to them mind.

It only needs to have been read by one officer and the news passed on – the source of a newspaper report being lost in the telling – and natural momentum and human nature takes over as the story is circulated around the force, or at least some of it. It didn't even need to be a police officer who read the newspaper report. Someone who knew a police officer could have read it, mentioned it to his friend or relative and so it begins.

One must not forget Andrews correspondence traffic, which would have been handled by the Mets telegraph operators. The updates would not have been entirely restricted to sender and receiver.

I could come up with a number of theories as to how genuine information might have transmitted its way to Dew. Perhaps Andrews mentioned his mission to D.S. Froest who told Sergeant Thick in H Division over a cup of tea and the sergeant then told Dew. Or, as you say, a telegraphic operator gossips to a friend who gossips to another friend and Dew finds out. We could speculate for the rest of our lives but that's not the point at all.

The point is that any of these theories would mean that Dew's memoir is not a first-hand account from his own personal knowledge. Once it stops being a first-hand account from his own personal knowledge then the potential unreliability of the account is obvious and the memoir loses its value as a historical record. It simply becomes hearsay. Yes, the information could have been accurate but it could also have been totally wrong. That's the point.

Once such doubt is cast on it, the memoir has to be abandoned as a supporting piece of evidence that Andrews was chasing a JTR suspect in North America because the original source could easily be (and in my view probably is) the very same newspaper account that the Tumblety-as-suspect advocates are trying to find evidential support for.

Previously I had accepted Dew's recollection of seeing Andrews in Whitechapel because I thought it must have come from his personal knowledge. If Jonathan is right, the whole thing is second or third hand or worse.

[David Orsam]

People who say they are 100% certain (about historical opinions at least) are sliding into faith-based ways of thinking or feeling. Because they were not there. How then can they be 100% if they were not there?

You have nailed it with your reference to "historical opinions" as opposed to historical facts. In the same way that I am 100% certain that Robert Anderson was an Assistant Commissioner and Walter Andrews was an detective inspector, so I am 100% certain that Inspector Andrews went to Toronto to escort Roland Barnett. Perhaps one day someone will publish evidence to the contrary for one or all three of the preceding historical facts but, until they do, I will continue in my certainty that it is a historical fact.

To use an old-fashioned designation you write like a whiz kid; e.g. somebody very talented and quite young. There's nothing wrong with youth. But there are disadvantages to it too. A rush to judgment, for one, and a difficulty with cohabiting with rival theories for another.

LOL, as one of those young people might say. I will think of your words next year, Jonathan, when I celebrate my 50th birthday.

That's why I posted Calvin Trillin's "The Buffs", as a brilliant essay in itself but also a cautionary warning about falling into partisan, fetishistic and emotive modes of thinking that replace rational, objective analysis.

I did not miss the irony.

I think it is more likely that in 1888 Dew knew exactly what Andrews was up to, and maybe he chose to include Andrews in his memoir reference because of the Canadian trip (without indiscreetly saying so). It was very likely a mission that was improvised and perhaps doomed, due to being short on time, funds and opportunity.

All speculation, no evidential basis.

But in the great British tradition of we'll give it a go and see what turns up, Andrews went -- straight into a public relations buzzsaw. ****-ups by organizations (sir, what exactly am I supposed to find out in Toronto? You'll know when you get there)

Another LOL! Seriously Jonathan? Is that how it happened? And perhaps Anderson also said, "By the way Andrews, while you are out there, see if anything turns up about Parnell, there's a good chap".

But the serious point is that even if Anderson had made the connection between Tumblety and Toronto before 29 November 1888 – for which there is no evidence whatsoever and about which I seriously doubt - and did ask Andrews to "give it a go and see what turns up" – for which there is no evidence – by the time Andrews arrived in Toronto (if not by the time he departed Liverpool) he would have known that any such enquiries would have been a complete waste of time because there was no possibility of charging Tumblety with anything, so he would not have bothered "to see what turned up", thus explaining why there is no evidence or reports of anyone having been spoken to by Andrews in Toronto about Tumblety.

As it was, the Andrews trip was a public relations debacle on multiple fronts.

Perhaps Scotland Yard in 1888 simply needed to employ a PR adviser?

The primary sources of 1888 to 1891 show that Mary Jane Kelly was not believed at the time to be the Ripper's final victim e.g. an orgy of post mortem violence that cracked open Jack's mind like a warm, boiled egg. The killer was, in fact, assumed to be still out there poised to strike again. After a longer than expected interval, he did seem to kill again in July 1889.

I understand this. What does it have to do with the matter in hand?

Assuming Dew did not mean the Canadian fizzer, why would Anderson, who was under such tremendous pressure, take Andrews off the Whitechapel investigation in 1888--at the very height of the Terror? With no sense that it had concluded with the double event or Kelly. I do not think he would have, not unless escorting the prisoner gave them cover to deny they were doing a background check (I do not mean, however, the trip would have happened without Barnett). Andrews' alleged denial to a reporter in Canada is, for me, tellingly over-emphatic; a tremulous glimpse into the acute embarrassment that trailed the Irish-American absconder for CID.

I can give you three answers to your question. Firstly, Dew does not say when Andrews was on the Whitechapel investigation so perhaps it was only in 1889 that he was brought in. Secondly, if he was on the case in 1888, perhaps it was only a specific task. With Abberline in overall charge of the investigation I don't think Anderson needed other inspectors specifically (just other detectives, and Anderson had lots of other detectives in CID he could use). That may be why Andrews referred to only a single inspector being on the case to the reporters in Montreal. Thirdly, if you don't like the first two answers, I would point out that your belief that Anderson would not have allowed Andrews to go to Canada is no more than your own unsupported opinion which does not seem to have any evidential basis to it.

But, as I said yesterday, I actually rather agree with you that Dew did mean "the Canadian fizzer" and that this explains everything that was puzzling me about Dew's memoirs and his mention of Andrews as one of the troika. Now that I see that Dew probably got his information (directly or indirectly) from the newspapers it all makes sense.

You say I don't deal with certain aspects. But neither do you.

I warned you against defying common sense and the world of real people, and thus ending up in Buff-world, but you ignored all that. I warned you against the sterility of absolutes and you have ignored that too.

You have the right to ignore it.

But its a bit rich, young man, to then say I am ignoring stuff you bring up.

I'm sorry Jonathan but I have no recollection of these warnings. If you ever made them I must have been trying to focus on points of substance. But what you are saying is that I have ignored your (unsolicited) advice whereas I am saying something completely different, namely that you have ignored an important point of substance in this debate. In fact, I'm saying that you have ignored a point that is fatal to your argument. The timing simply does not work to support an argument that Andrews was in Toronto to conduct research into Tumblety because Tumblety could no longer be charged by Scotland Yard with any offence at the time Andrews was in Toronto.

Logan's claiming that the murders stopped with the flight of the suspect abroad is not from newspaper accounts of 1888 and 1889.

This is irrelevant because I haven't mentioned anything about Logan claiming that the murders stopped with the flight of the suspect abroad. I'm only talking about his claim that Andrews went to America in search of the suspect. It's a separate point. And, on your case, Logan's claim was wrong because you are, I think, agreeing with Palmer that he went to America to research the suspect, not to search for him. So Logan has published inaccurate information. Why would he do this? The answer must be: because his source was unreliable. And if his source was unreliable then Logan cannot be relied upon.

Quite the opposite, as ÚS newspapers were trumpeting Tumblety's innocence because subsequent murders in Whitechapel 'cleared' him. The short-lived 'autumn of terror' was a handy, retrospective myth invented by Macnaghten, who is pals with Sims, who knew Logan. This is a textual theme, or meme, that first appears many years later in the extant record (in 1898).

I understand your point that Macnaghten is the source of Logan's claim about Andrews chasing a suspect in America (although I disagree with you that this is supported by "textual evidence" as you said earlier) but the simple fact is that (on both our cases) this means that Macnaghten was giving Logan false information. Now you may have a convoluted reason to offer me as to why Macnaghten did this but for me it would simply mean that Macnaghten was mistaken, having gained his own information from the newspapers before he even joined the Metropolitan Police and having no reason to challenge his own belief in that information after he joined the force.

That's the second time I have written about this aspect, there will not be a third.

Noted, and probably for the best.

You allege that I have a spiritual need, or bias, or both, to have Andrews investigating Tumblety?

Another nonsensical mistake, mate.

Not an allegation, mate, it was a question which I asked you because you seem to be very fervent in your beliefs yet don't seem to be offering up any evidence to support them. I'm well aware that Tumblety is not your suspect but the notion that Andrews was researching Tumblety in Canada is clearly not inconsistent with your book and I'm wondering if you like the theory so much because it fits in with what you think the police were doing and thinking, especially in light of the Littlechild letter.

Here's my challenge to you Jonathan should you be prepared to accept it. Please list in numbered form with short bullet points the actual evidence that Inspector Andrews was researching Tumblety in Toronto or, if you prefer, that he was doing anything relating to Tumblety in Toronto. I challenge you to do this because I don't believe there is any and I want to try and focus your mind on the fact that you are, in my opinion, advocating a theory which has no evidence to support it.

[David Orsam]

This is illogical since, no less than three Scotland Yard officials refer to Tumblety as a suspect. Littlechild stated Tumblety was 'amongst the suspects'.

I'm sorry Mike but this is to completely miss the point. I'm not arguing that Tumblety wasn't a suspect. I have no problem with him being a suspect.

What I am saying is that Inspector Andrews' visit to Toronto had absolutely nothing to do with Tumblety. The two things are in no way connected. It is the specific claim that Andrews went to Toronto to carry out research into Tumblety which I am saying is nonsense and unsupported by any evidence.

[Monty]

Didn't realise that point had to be made David.

Monty

[Mayerling]

What headline would sell the most papers?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Good question. There was more propriety in the main British press in 1888, but after all they did report crime (as did the U.S. press). Rarely did they openly discuss sexual deviancy in 1888 (unless forced somewhat like in the future Cleveland Street and Oscar Wilde cases).

But the budding new boys on the block in NYC...that was a different matter. Mr. Pulitzer of the World was already showing a marked interest in real investigations by his team of writer/detectives into all kinds of sordid matters. Mr. Hearst of the Journal was soon to join him. Their willingness to do so would lead their rival, Mr. Ochs of the reinvented and revitalized New York Times, in 1896, to start putting up on the front page the statement "All the news that FIT to print!". Besides the "yellow journalist" boys, Mr. Gordon Bennett did not mind sensationalism in his "New York Herald". Hell, his father had actually run seedy advertisements for questionable doctors and treatments for women in trouble in the 1830s up to the 1870s.

So the Tumblety matter could have been presented as a search for either a Ripper suspect (which it was at the end) or as pursuit of a sex pervert. Either would have worked in the New York press.

Jeff

[Mayerling]

LOL, as one of those young people might say. I will think of your words next year, Jonathan, when I celebrate my 50th birthday.

Another LOL! Seriously Jonathan? Is that how it happened? And perhaps Anderson also said, "By the way Andrews, while you are out there, see if anything turns up about Parnell, there's a good chap".

But the serious point is that even if Anderson had made the connection between Tumblety and Toronto before 29 November 1888 – for which there is no evidence whatsoever and about which I seriously doubt - and did ask Andrews to "give it a go and see what turns up" – for which there is no evidence – by the time Andrews arrived in Toronto (if not by the time he departed Liverpool) he would have known that any such enquiries would have been a complete waste of time because there was no possibility of charging Tumblety with anything, so he would not have bothered "to see what turned up", thus explaining why there is no evidence or reports of anyone having been spoken to by Andrews in Toronto about Tumblety.

Perhaps Scotland Yard in 1888 simply needed to employ a PR adviser?

Hi David,

Congratulations on turning 49 this year. I turned 61 on April 20th, so I suspect I'm an old codger at this point.

P.R. problem: Yes, although it never really was considered (because nobody really thought in terms of public relations in 1888) Scotland Yard needed it. It was finally regaining some trust from the public after the Detective Bribery Scandal of 1877, but Warren's stint in control (actually meant to firm up the image a bit with military precision) was a bust: Bloody Sunday and the Trafalgar Square riots; the arrest of Mrs. Cass for soliciting when she wasn't; rumors (in February 1888) of police extortions against small merchants; and then the Whitechapel disaster. I'd say some type of good news to restore image would be needed.

Anderson and Andrews and "wink-wink" special instructions that were "our little secret": Actually, even if he knew the official reason for Andrews going to Canada had to do with non-Whitechapel and non-Parnell matters, he'd have been seriously remiss about totally ignoring the possibility of hearing news in Toronto. Not too far away in Illinois Major Le Caron is busy trying to wheedle out all Fenian activity secrets and Anderson reassures Andrews that if approached by one of Le Caron's operatives in Toronto he's to ignore it. Think about that one for a moment. "Not your business Detective. You are to drop off your man, talk a little to Toronto's chief of police and head home!" Does that make sense. Really?

As for Doc Tumblety, you are right that the chance for extraditing the Doc for his sexual crime was not too likely to happen, but it is because it didn't happen. But (please bear this from me for a second). Suppose the day after Doc fled to France some Inspector Smyth came with proof that Tumblety actually had threatened to rip Mary Kelly apart on November 1, 1888, before one witness, but that witness was reluctant for whatever reason. Suddenly, Tumblety's importance as a suspect rises immeasurably, and Anderson knows he must make an effort to track him down and bring him back. Moreover, if Tumblety is the Ripper, he may soon turn attentions to the prostitutes of the country he is in (France and the U.S., neither exactly close to Britain in 1888 regarding civil relations). Is he likely then to tell Andrews, "Don't bother about the creepy doctor - he's a problem of those Frogs or the Yanks now." and thus risk really bad foreign relations problems later, or tell Andrews to keep his ears open about Tumblety. We know the Doc never apparently did anything on a Ripper-scale at any times (that can be definitely proven), but that's the gift of hindsight. In late November 1888 Anderson couldn't risk it.

Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

Good question. There was more propriety in the main British press in 1888, but after all they did report crime (as did the U.S. press). Rarely did they openly discuss sexual deviancy in 1888 (unless forced somewhat like in the future Cleveland Street and Oscar Wilde cases).

But the budding new boys on the block in NYC...that was a different matter. Mr. Pulitzer of the World was already showing a marked interest in real investigations by his team of writer/detectives into all kinds of sordid matters. Mr. Hearst of the Journal was soon to join him. Their willingness to do so would lead their rival, Mr. Ochs of the reinvented and revitalized New York Times, in 1896, to start putting up on the front page the statement "All the news that FIT to print!". Besides the "yellow journalist" boys, Mr. Gordon Bennett did not mind sensationalism in his "New York Herald". Hell, his father had actually run seedy advertisements for questionable doctors and treatments for women in trouble in the 1830s up to the 1870s.

So the Tumblety matter could have been presented as a search for either a Ripper suspect (which it was at the end) or as pursuit of a sex pervert. Either would have worked in the New York press.

Jeff

I would have expected the ripper headline to be the one to use but they didn't did they? With a follow up for him jumping bail to avoid the hangman to make it more sensational.

So which headline did they use then in the end?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Jonathan H]

To David

I have done what you demanded several times already, whereas you have not answered my challenge.

49?! Then you have no excuse for being so doctrinaire. Which I'm not being. Nor am I being fervent. That sounds more like you.

Because you might be wrong, because you were not there.

And you don't have to 'recollect' anything. Just read what I wrote--twice--to realize you are spinning away from real people and the real world into intellectual sterility and, worse, a tart rigidity.

I notice that when you don't understand a point I have made, say about Kelly, you assume it is irrelevant. Whereas Mayerling grasped its meaning, about hindsight, immediately.

As I wrote before we will have to agree to disagree, if you can cope with that non-doctrinaire concept.

To Mayerling

Nailed it in one. Public relations was paramount at the Yard and the Home Office. It always was -- and is -- in a parliamentary democracy, where the press are on your back, funding is in the balance and jobs are on the line. If Tumblety was a Ripper suspect and Andrews is going to be in one of his recent haunts why would he not do some discreet digging?

The press exaggerated this into a chase to New York for the fiend, whilst Irish sympathizers turned it into something even juicier and more inappropriate. These accounts are primary sources too. The latter charge was, I think, based on nothing but prejudice and paranoia, but the latter hype had some basis in fact, e.g. a modest, opportunistic background check that perhaps came to little.

[Mayerling]

I would have expected the ripper headline to be the one to use but they didn't did they? With a follow up for him jumping bail to avoid the hangman to make it more sensational.

So which headline did they use then in the end?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

As I said, "Good question!" In terms of immediacy of impact by an international news story, "Ripper sought here!" would seem to win out over "Pervert Doc sought". I suppose you are right, but it's trickier than we imagine. There is another matter to think of - Tumblety never hesitated seeking legal actions when he felt threatened or smeared. Would the newspapers have wanted to be too explicit regarding why he was sought? You takes your choices - sued for publishing he likes young males or sued for publishing he's the worst uncaught murderer in history.

Jeff

[Mayerling]

I notice that when you don't understand a point I have made, say about Kelly, you assume it is irrelevant. Whereas Mayerling grasped its meaning, about hindsight, immediately.

To Mayerling

Nailed it in one. Public relations was paramount at the Yard and the Home Office. It always was -- and is -- in a parliamentary democracy, where the press are on your back, funding is in the balance and jobs are on the line. If Tumblety was a Ripper suspect and Andrews is going to be in one of his recent haunts why would he not do some discreet digging?

The press exaggerated this into a chase to New York for the fiend, whilst Irish sympathizers turned it into something even juicier and more inappropriate. These accounts are primary sources too. The latter charge was, I think, based on nothing but prejudice and paranoia, but the latter hype had some basis in fact, e.g. a modest, opportunistic background check that perhaps came to little.

Thank you Jonathan.

Jeff

[David Orsam]

Anderson and Andrews and "wink-wink" special instructions that were "our little secret": Actually, even if he knew the official reason for Andrews going to Canada had to do with non-Whitechapel and non-Parnell matters, he'd have been seriously remiss about totally ignoring the possibility of hearing news in Toronto. Not too far away in Illinois Major Le Caron is busy trying to wheedle out all Fenian activity secrets and Anderson reassures Andrews that if approached by one of Le Caron's operatives in Toronto he's to ignore it. Think about that one for a moment. "Not your business Detective. You are to drop off your man, talk a little to Toronto's chief of police and head home!" Does that make sense. Really?

Hi Jeff,

For me, I'm afraid, what you are saying doesn't make any sense. Who, for example, were "Le Caron's operatives" who you suggest were likely to have approached Andrews in Toronto? And why would they have approached him? When you say "even if he knew the official reason for Andrews going to Canada", who are you referring to? Anderson? You seem to be, for then you say "he'd have been seriously remiss about totally ignoring the possibility of hearing news in Toronto." But of course Anderson would have been the person giving the orders. And what news in Toronto would Anderson have been expecting Andrews to hear?

And to answer your actual question, no it doesn't make any sense for Anderson to have told Andrews to ignore anything he was told about Tumblety in Toronto (if that is what you are saying) because he wouldn't have been expecting him to be told anything.

As for Doc Tumblety, you are right that the chance for extraditing the Doc for his sexual crime was not too likely to happen, but it is because it didn't happen. But (please bear this from me for a second). Suppose the day after Doc fled to France some Inspector Smyth came with proof that Tumblety actually had threatened to rip Mary Kelly apart on November 1, 1888, before one witness, but that witness was reluctant for whatever reason. Suddenly, Tumblety's importance as a suspect rises immeasurably, and Anderson knows he must make an effort to track him down and bring him back. Moreover, if Tumblety is the Ripper, he may soon turn attentions to the prostitutes of the country he is in (France and the U.S., neither exactly close to Britain in 1888 regarding civil relations). Is he likely then to tell Andrews, "Don't bother about the creepy doctor - he's a problem of those Frogs or the Yanks now." and thus risk really bad foreign relations problems later, or tell Andrews to keep his ears open about Tumblety. We know the Doc never apparently did anything on a Ripper-scale at any times (that can be definitely proven), but that's the gift of hindsight. In late November 1888 Anderson couldn't risk it.

I fully understand the issue of hindsight Jeff but I fear it is you who are using hindsight here. It is only with the benefit of hindsight and modern research that we know that Tumblety had some (slim) connection with Toronto. I'm suggesting that Anderson in November 1888 would not have had any idea about this because that information was confined to newspapers in North America which Anderson would not have read or been aware of.

The suggestion that Scotland Yard might have obtained information about Tumblety after he fled the country is hypothetical only with no evidence at all to support it. Moreover, if Anderson had evidence that Tumblety was JTR, sufficient that Tumblety could be charged, then his only option was to commence official extradition proceedings. You say "Anderson knows he must make an effort to track him down and bring him back". Sending an officer to the United States, who had no jurisdiction in the United States, if that is what you are suggesting, would not have got him anywhere. And without extradition proceedings there was no point in doing background research into Tumblety because he couldn't be charged with anything. We know that there were no extradition proceedings so QED Anderson never got any evidence against Tumblety sufficient to charge him with anything.

For the reasons I mentioned above, your suggestion that Anderson would have told Andrews to "keep his ears open" about Tumblety makes no historical sense to me but, even if for some strange reason he did, this is very different to what R.J. Palmer and Jonathan are saying.