Kosminski - Dead or Alive

[mklhawley]

Yes, Mike, I have read Palmer’s article in which he advanced the THEORY that Andrews was sent to southern Ontario to obtain information regarding Tumblety. Anyone who actually knows anything about Andrews’ trip, or the circumstances surrounding the Tumblety investigation, probably found, as I did, that the EVIDENCE Palmer used to back up his THEORY was less than convincing. Be that as it may, You have still to explain how Palmer’s THEORY becomes a FACT to be tossed lightly into your post as if it were true.

It's not surprising that you were less than convinced, because it was your claims that he debunked. Case in point: You stated that the last time Tumblety was in Toronto was years prior to the Ripper murders (hence, ridiculous for Andrews to investigate Tumblety in Toronto), and Roger demonstrated convincingly that Tumblety basically hung out in Toronto in the 1880s. Also, where again was Thomas Beach?

It's also not surprising that Simon couldn't agree with you more, because Roger debunked a number of his contributions from Smoke and Mirrors, as well.

Second.

The reason why it is believed that Andrews’ trip to southern Ontario concerned the gathering of evidence against Parnell and the Irish Nationalist Movement is simple: Inspector Andrews stated this in interviews with reporters that appeared in both Toronto and Montreal newspapers. If Andrews himself tells us that he had gathered evidence pertaining to the Irish Movement and Mike, Palmer and Jonathan say that he didn’t, that he was in Ontario investigating Tumblety instead, who do you think I, or anyone else, should believe?

Roger demonstrated convincingly that these sources had extreme simpathy for the Irish Nationalist movement, such as Patrick Boyle, Teefy, and Frank Millen. Why did you forget to mention this? You used tainted evidence.


And all of the evidence points to Andrews' mission was against Parnell?

(Montreal, Dec. 20th). It was announced at police headquarters today that Andrews has a commission in connection with two other Scotland Yard men to find the murderer in America. His inaction for so long a time, and the fact that a man, suspected of knowing considerable about the murders left England for this side three weeks ago, makes the London police believe “Jack” has left that country for this. St. Louis Rep. Dec 22, 1888

In order to believe Andrews and company violated British Law to drum up evidence against a standing member of Parliament with no one blowing the whistle, one has to be a huge conspiracy theorist. Just as Simon likes to use, Occam's Razor clearly favors Andrews coming to Canada for the Ripper investigation, as opposed to propping up a huge conspiracy.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Simon Wood]

Hi Wolf,

Thank you.

I couldn't have put it better myself.

Regards,

Simon

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

I’d like apologize right off the bat for being one of the posters who has hi-jacked this Kosminski thread but I’d like to respond here to a couple of things that Jonathon and Mike have stated.

First. I have noticed that Mike likes to make statements which have little or no basis in fact. Usually I point this out on the boards but it got so that Mike accused me of “cyber bullying” for correcting his mistakes all the time. I haven’t done this for a while because it was becoming more like a full time job but I thought I’d ask him about his statement, given as if it were a universally acknowledged fact, that Anderson had sent Inspector Andrews to Canada because of Tumblety. I asked for evidence to prove this “fact” but what I got in reply was:

“Evidence Wolf? The shortest answer is read Roger's three part article.”

Yes, Mike, I have read Palmer’s article in which he advanced the THEORY that Andrews was sent to southern Ontario to obtain information regarding Tumblety. Anyone who actually knows anything about Andrews’ trip, or the circumstances surrounding the Tumblety investigation, probably found, as I did, that the EVIDENCE Palmer used to back up his THEORY was less than convincing. Be that as it may, You have still to explain how Palmer’s THEORY becomes a FACT to be tossed lightly into your post as if it were true.

Second.

“The belief that Andrews came over to hunt down evidence against Parnell was not a recent discovery by any ripperologist, it was a defunct nineteenth century argument resurrected by ripperologists.” Mike Hawley, Post #61

“Yes, the local press which favoured the Irish-Catholic sectrian divide, turned Andrews' trip into a scurrilous bit of business to do with the Parnell imbroglio, but that makes no sense as a plausible politcal scenario -- to put it mildly.” Jonathan H, Post #52

The reason why it is believed that Andrews’ trip to southern Ontario concerned the gathering of evidence against Parnell and the Irish Nationalist Movement is simple: Inspector Andrews stated this in interviews with reporters that appeared in both Toronto and Montreal newspapers. If Andrews himself tells us that he had gathered evidence pertaining to the Irish Movement and Mike, Palmer and Jonathan say that he didn’t, that he was in Ontario investigating Tumblety instead, who do you think I, or anyone else, should believe?

Once again, sorry for the hi-jacking.

Wolf.

[Steve S]

I'm afraid the hi-jacking is my fault....Just spread from the the "who actually knew what in senior police ranks" idea..........Or,to be more precise,who knew what FROM who..On Koz,I'm not sure....Anderson implies all was known long before MacNaughton ever got involved...........??

[Stewart P Evans]

Off-Topic

Tumblety is rather off-topic for this thread, but it was not I who introduced him. I merely noted the importance of accuracy and that there is a difference between a mere 'likely' and the accurate 'very likely' of the quote.

This, of course, reflects on any interpretation of Littlechild's evaluation of Tumblety as a suspect. The words 'very likely' were written by Littlechild and historical accuracy demands that it is used in full when quoting Littlechild. Omission of the 'very' diminishes the status Littlechild's description of Tumblety's relevance as a suspect.

People will, as they do, put their own interpretation on these things. But, at least, they should do so from a full and accurate standpoint. There is no excuse or mitigation for leaving out the word 'very' in this context. It is noticeable that it is usually done by Tumblety detractors and may indicate bias rather than objectivity.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mike,

Nice spin.

Regards,

Simon

[mklhawley]

Wolf! Simon!

Glad to see the two of you asking about Andrews and Tumblety again. The fact that Simon commented about Andrews never making it to New York City is clear evidence that he did not read Roger Palmer's articles. Andrews going to New York suggests that he was following Tumblety and that is farthest from the truth.

Evidence Wolf? The shortest answer is read Roger's three part article. The belief that Andrews came over to hunt down evidence against Parnell was not a recent discovery by any ripperologist, it was a defunct nineteenth century argument resurrected by ripperologists.

But Jonathan's correct. If you'd like to continue this on any Andrews or Tumblety thread, sounds great. Actually, some of them ARE on this issue.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Jonathan H]

A close relation of mine subscribes, so I will see what I can scrounge.

Look forward to it as I do all your articles.

In the spirit of point/counter-point let me say that the Polish Jewish suspect being deceased makes for a much more satisfying tale. Much better than just 'safely caged' (soon after Kelly) especially the disappointment caused by a treacherous witness.

Except that, this element of the tale was never propagated to the public.

This argues in favour of Anderson 'knowing' this from the start, the Polish Jew being dead, rather than being a detail he has self-servingly confused with some other suspect.

That lack of informing the public that the fiend was safely dead is ambiguous enough to be taken for many things, or not much at all.

But if you've read Scott Nelson's recent, fascinating piece in the latest 'Ripperologist ' then ...

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jonathan,

Wolf? Politically naive? My goodness, you're a tough date.

In all modesty may I commend "Smoke and Mirrors," my article in Ripperologist 106.

I'm certain Adam Wood will have a back-number.

Regards,

Simon

[Jonathan H]

You know me, Simon.

Always the facts.

I'm the Fact-Man. As Sir Melville writes in his 1914 memoirs: 'certain facts' led to a 'conclusion' but only 'some years after' the police had been fruitlessly chasing a phantom.

I abhor the fantasists -- a polite term in this context -- the ones who created the Rasputin revelation of 1923, the Dr. Stanley scoop, the voluminous, unlimited, all-purpose Dr. Dutton archives, the Ripper as Prince Noodle-head, the Royal Watergate, the you've-got-to-kidding 'diary' (poor Maybrick was murdered twice!) and the penile misadventures of the allegedly impotent Walter Sickert.

Wolf's pieces of a few years ago were very good, and a good read to this day, but their flaw was their political naivette.

Where have you debunked the debunking of the debunkers?

Can I access it?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jonathan,

Yes, I have.

And both Wolf and I have debunked the debunking debunkers.

Facts or fantasy? Your choice.

Regards,

Simon

[Jonathan H]

New York? I never mentioned New York.

Have you read Palmer's trilogy debunking the debunkers?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jonathan,

No, no, thrice no.

On his North American trip Inspector Walter Andrews did not go anywhere near New York; nor did he give a flying fig about Tumblety.

But whilst in Canada he did have other things on his agenda.

Regards,

Simon

[Jonathan H]

That's right, Simon ... and to do a background check on Dr. Francis Tumblety -- Scotland Yard's 'very likely' suspect to be Jack the Ripper.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jonathan,

Inspector Andrews traveled to Halifax, Nova Scotia, with Roland Gideon Israel Barnett, celebrated financial “fakir” and bucket-shop speculator, in order to deliver him to the Canadian authorities in Toronto.

Regards,

Simon