Tumblety and Pinkerton

[Simon Wood]

Hi Stewart,

In the immortal words of Mandy Rice Davies, "Well he would, wouldn't he?"

This is Anderson at his dissembling best. You can almost see him bristling with indignation at the mere suggestion of something untoward.

Everyone was falling over themselves to deny the true purpose of Scotland Yard's North American adventure–Robert Anderson, James Monro, Henry Matthews, St. John Wontner, Fred Jarvis . . . . Yet not one of them played the get-out-of-jail Jack the Ripper card.

Interesting.

Regards,

Simon

[mklhawley]

So, in front of Parliament (I am assuming under oath), Labouchere testified that Inspector Jarvis was doing business for the Times in Del Norte, but Jarvis was actually in the US. Apparently, this had enough teeth on it for Jarvis not only to start a lawsuit, but for Labouchere to try to settle out of court. In court, the jury is given a falsus in uno criminal instruction as a guide for listening to eyewitness testimony. It says that if any part of a witness’s testimony is contradictory in any way, then jurors have the right to disregard none, some, or all of their testimony. It comes from the complete Latin phrase, falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, which means “untrue in one thing, untrue in everything”.


Hi Stewart,

Where is Del Norte?

Sincerely,

Mike

[Stewart P Evans]

Inspector Jarvis

Then Anderson specifically denied any involvement of Inspector Jarvis in such activities.

[Stewart P Evans]

Sidelights on the Home Rule Movement

An interesting debate. Whilst not wishing to get into involved speculative arguments I shall contribute a small item as regards Anderson. He clearly denied any involvement of Scotland Yard with the action against The Times and categorically denied that any police officers were 'sent across the Atlantic to tout for evidence against the Parnellites.' Here he is confirming just that in 1906 in Sidelights on the Home Rule Movement. Possibly, then, a clear example of Anderson lying in a published work to his readers.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mike,

Allow me to turn your question around.

Why is it that when the newspapers wrote about the Parnell conspiracy and Shore et al they were dead wrong, but when they wrote about Tumblety they were dead right?

And why was it that during all the subsequent heated political debate about Scotland Yard's adventures in North America nobody thought to ask how Inspector Andrews had fared regarding Tumblety and his alleged involvement in the Whitechapel murders?

Regards,

Simon

[mklhawley]

Hi RJ,

No problem. I've been called a lot worse. And, as I learned from Matthew Packer, my apples and oranges are clearly marked.

When necessary all governments circumvent the rule of law if the actions taken are deemed to be in the "national interest". British history is littered with examples. You're quite right; there is no documentation for what you term "this grand conspiracy", or to use the words of John Redmond MP in 1910, this "foul and criminal conspiracy". But did you honestly expect there to be? A conspiracy there most certainly was, and Anderson was up to his eyes in it. The evidence is overwhelming.

We don't yet know half of what was going on with Anderson's detectives [private and official] in North America, but one thing is crystal clear: their activities had nothing to do with Tumblety being sought in connection with the Whitechapel murders. He was nothing more than a handy fifteen-minutes-of-fame headline amongst a carefully-orchestrated barrage of conflicting US newspaper accounts as to the nature of Scotland Yard's activities–and not one of them reported in the London press. Today it's known as news-management, a quaint euphemism for political censorship.

Do you really believe the "Anderson Machine" would have ended up making such a rod for its own back–one that led to debates in parliament and Inspector Jarvis, under threat of dismissal by James Monro, using Scotland Yard's own lawyers to bring a "private" action for slander against Henry Labouchere MP–if it could have put its hand on its collective heart and said, "We were in North America looking for Jack the Ripper"? Not that anyone would have believed them, of course.

You're looking down the wrong end of the telescope. It was the pursuit of Tumblety in connection with the Whitechapel murders which never happened.

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon,

I'm sure Roger will reply, but I do have a question. The only evidence you have for Chief Inspector Shore being in the US in Dec 1888 are a couple of North American newspaper articles. It's funny that when the newspapers talk about Tumblety they are dead wrong, but when they talk about the Parnell conspiracy and Shore they are dead on without skepticism. When Pinkerton stated clearly that Shore has not been in the US for over a year, would it not have been easy to check up on this? Why would a Chief Inspector chance his entire career by being caught across the Atlantic? Shore had only one reason for being there if this were true, an illegal act against a Parlimentary member. Why did the later investigation not ask, "Chief Inspector, were you in the US?" Did this happen? If so, I'd like to see it. If not, why not? This would have been the proof needed to seal the fate of anyone involved in a Parnell conspiracy.

Just as Wolf Vanderlinden stated before I caught him on it, it is a stretch of logic to think a chief inspector would cross the Atlantic to accomplish an illegal act. I agree with Wolf. There would have been no "plausible deniability".

Mike

[Simon Wood]

Hi RJ,

No problem. I've been called a lot worse. And, as I learned from Matthew Packer, my apples and oranges are clearly marked.

When necessary all governments circumvent the rule of law if the actions taken are deemed to be in the "national interest". British history is littered with examples. You're quite right; there is no documentation for what you term "this grand conspiracy", or to use the words of John Redmond MP in 1910, this "foul and criminal conspiracy". But did you honestly expect there to be? A conspiracy there most certainly was, and Anderson was up to his eyes in it. The evidence is overwhelming.

We don't yet know half of what was going on with Anderson's detectives [private and official] in North America, but one thing is crystal clear: their activities had nothing to do with Tumblety being sought in connection with the Whitechapel murders. He was nothing more than a handy fifteen-minutes-of-fame headline amongst a carefully-orchestrated barrage of conflicting US newspaper accounts as to the nature of Scotland Yard's activities–and not one of them reported in the London press. Today it's known as news-management, a quaint euphemism for political censorship.

Do you really believe the "Anderson Machine" would have ended up making such a rod for its own back–one that led to debates in parliament and Inspector Jarvis, under threat of dismissal by James Monro, using Scotland Yard's own lawyers to bring a "private" action for slander against Henry Labouchere MP–if it could have put its hand on its collective heart and said, "We were in North America looking for Jack the Ripper"? Not that anyone would have believed them, of course.

You're looking down the wrong end of the telescope. It was the pursuit of Tumblety in connection with the Whitechapel murders which never happened.

Regards,

Simon

[Natalie Severn]

And what does Thomson have to do with it? As I already pointed out, he was an ex-Inspector now in 'private practice.

Hi Roger,
Reams of information exist on the role played by James Thomson , who had been seconded to the fledgling secret service of 1867 [following the Clerkenwell bomb outrage].True it only lasted a few months but both he and Dolly Williamson had been seconded from the Metropolitan Police to do secret service work and Thompson continued throughout his career to do various anti fenian "informer" jobs for Anderson.We see in 1910 that The Commissioner Sir Edward Henry had minuted on the file opened on "the Clacton Claimant"[Martha Thomson, with whom Thomson operated under the name "Ladybird"] that Thomson was employed by Anderson "to make some inquiry" in 1887.
Martha took up the story after reading herself and her husband "named" in TLYOMOL.She confirms that the two of them were sent by Anderson to meet Millen in Boulogne in 1887--just as Anderson stated in his above autobiography.She adds that their work took on even greater importance when they were sent to New York on a five month operation as part of a plan to "crush Parnell."
I found it very interesting that despite Anderson having named both her husband and herself as the people he employed to meet Millen and his wife in Boulogne,the Foreign Office could "find no reference in our archives to Thomson".Does that surprise you?

Oh I think Anderson was involved Roger,in sending people like Thomson and possibly Andrews to far off places ---he just didn"t let it be known in 1888.

[rjpalmer]

Norma--The letters between Anderson and Soames in The Times archives show that the two men were not in negotiation until January, 1889--just as Anderson later stated in Sidelights to Home Rule. So the historical record actually supports his claim. This is also consistent with Le Caron's account, whose return to England, we know, was entirely incidental. There is no documentation for this grand conspiracy, nor does it even make good sense. And what does Thomson have to do with it? As I already pointed out, he was an ex-Inspector now in 'private practice.' This actually goes against your theory, for, with such men at the Times' disposal they had no need of using active Scotland Yard men, nor would Warren, Monro, or the government have allowed them to do so. Anderson, if nothing else, was a political survivor and wouldn't have risked the scandal, nor, I believe, would his underlings have gone along with it.

Meanwhile, I'd like to apologize to Simon Wood for calling him Owen. It's been so long since I've posted that I had a momentary flashback to the late 1990s.

[mklhawley]

Don't forget Roger's challenge Norma.

Mike

[Natalie Severn]

Great to see you posting here again Roger and I am relieved and glad that you have clarified your position on any alleged link between homosexuality and the "supposed" sexual murder of women and that you make it quite clear that you find such an idea as absurd.
With regards to Anderson well you have to interpret my view of the man in your own way.I believe Anderson demonstrated ,after writing those "Behind the Scenes in America " articles for "The Times" in 1887 his political position viz a viz Home Rule and Parnell.They were intended to show Parnell as some kind of traveller in terror with the Fenians,which ,had it been true, could[ and very nearly did ] destroy Parnell"s political career, dependent as it was on Westminster"s Parliamentary Democracy as well as could have severely damaged the Home Rule Movement on which Parnell"s career was really based. In any case it would have been political suicide for Parnell had it been true.So Anderson showed his hand when he wrote those articles , lets not dodge about here.
But next we have to address the points you make about the Black propaganda Campaign from the other side, from the Fenians in Ireland and parts of mainland Britain,from Clan Na Gael and their supporters in America as well as from double agents such as Millen based in New York and Chicago ,also putting out the type of "disinformation" to which you refer.I am in total agreement with you,they were all writing stuff that was just as bad as anything coming from mainland Britain So how does one go about seeing the wood for the trees at this point in time?
Well certainly Monro and Anderson made a few enemies in their time such as the sacked Spy Master,Sir Edward Jenkinson, Anderson"s compatriot when at Dublin Castle, and Sir Edward left a fair number of letters that can be examined re their contents ;correspondence to and from his ex boss ,Earl Spencer,eg " P.S. Cassidy" Jenkinson to Earl Spencer 18 Oct 1888 AP KS252. In this Jenkinson refers to his dealings with Michael Davitt,who was able to provide some information on Pigott in Paris that October 1888 at the very same time as Anderson was also allegedly "holidaying" there! etc etc etc.
Its getting late over here Roger,I can"t prove tonight that Anderson had anything to do with sending Andrews on any anti -Fenian or anti Parnell mission to Canada but lets not forget that by 1888 Anderson had his spy,Beach aka Le Caron firmly planted within the cells of the Clan na Gael ,posing as a Sullivan ultra loyalist and Anderson remained Le Caron"s control throughout.Patrick Sheridan[Henry] ,living near Buffalo,was desperately being sought to give evidence at the Special Commission for The Times-they offered him £20.000 to testify at the Special Commission.
Then,as Pinkerton"s agents,Martha and James Thompson were despatched to negotiate with Millen in New York -in the hope he too would give evidence.And you may remember James Thompson had a long record of working as an "informer" for Robert Anderson from the 1860's but specifically to work for Anderson in 1887 "to be employed on some inquiry".He even went to Boulogne with his wife Martha to meet Millen there.This was just before they were later employed by The Times [1888/89] to negotiate with Millen in New York .
Anderson was not involved? Ask Macavity....he might give you a hint!
With All Good Wishes,
Norma

[rjpalmer]

P.S. Before it's pointed out, I realize that Reid was not an inspector at Scotland Yard, but a divisional one. He was, however, a member of what used to be called 'the working class,' and I think his views of the upper brass were probably typical.

[rjpalmer]

P.S. Before it's pointed out, I realize that Reid was not a Scotland Yard Inspector, but a divisional one. He, however, was a member of what used to be called the 'working class,' and I think his view of his 'betters' (ie., the adminstrators at Scotland Yard) is fairly typical.

[rjpalmer]

As for Simon Owen, I have no major complaints except that he is confusing apples and oranges. Scotland Yard investigating dynamiters in America in the 1880s? No news flash. It seems strange that I have to remind him that Scotland Yard was an organization that investigated crime. Blowing up public buildings is a crime. So is murdering women.

[rjpalmer]

I was alerted by email that Wolf Vanderlinden, whose work I recently critiqued in a Casebook Examiner article, was here on the forums, making the bizarre and utterly desperate claim that I'm homophobic and, further, that I believe there is a link between homosexuality and serial murder. In Vanderlinden's strange little world, this is my "agenda."

Let me just assure you that Vanderlinden's claim is not only dishonest, it's absurd. My favorite person in the entire world (a relative of mine) is homosexual, and she is, without question, the brightest, best, and most well-adjusted person I have ever met. Sexual preference is genetic and has no link to any particularly mental state or personality type. I can't think of a more rational and enlightened person than the British novelist E.M. Forster--who happened to be homosexual.

What I actually pointed out, two or three years ago, in response to one of Vanderlinden's always-so-confident mini-lectures, is that a member of the very F.B.I. unit that he holds up as a paragon of psychological insight once suggested that there WAS a link between homosexuality and the supposed 'sexual' murder of women. This was not an endorsement on my part. Far from it. I did not agree with that ridiculous suggestion and said so at the time. Vanderlinden must know this, since he responded, so draw your own conclusions about what is motivating his allegations.

THE ORIGINAL POINT--lost on Vanderlinden--IS THAT THE VERY savants he holds up as a supposed guiding beacon are guilty of promoting utterly ridiculous and superficial ideas, and, further, suggestions that even directly disagree with his own. Don't blame me if I point out that the emperor is wandering around naked.

Please realize, too, that Vanderlinden is an advocate of the vacuous 19th Century concept of "lustmort." Me? I want no part of it. That a few cops at the F.B.I. resurrected Krafft-Ebing's silly notions in the 1980s does not require me to take them seriously. Vanderlinden's view--which he repeated again and again on the original Casebook message boards--is that murderers of the Jack the Ripper type are motivated by 'lust.' Indeed, he once went so far as to repeat the wildly dubious Freudianism that the knife 'represented the penis' and thus the Ripper was "copulating" with his victims.

Oh dear.

Folks, I realize that 'lustmort' is a popular notion among Ripperologists, it couldn't be otherwise considering that it's freely spouted on Hollywood-style shockumentaries, but it doesn't make it valid. And it's not difficult to figure out the thought process of someone who believes in this sort of psycho-babble. Once they have accepted the simplistic idea that carving up another human being equates with lust , then it is an obvious and natural step to draw the logical (?) conclusion that 'homosexuals don't kill women"--because, after all, they are not attracted to them 'sexually.'

Such platitudes are futile. My own view is that calling the Whitechapel murders 'sexual' is merely descriptive and is true only in the broadest, murkiest sense. Hell, it's not even true at all. I've never believed sexuality is the core issue in killing sprees, and I don't believe that so-called 'sexual' murder differs in any meaningful way from mass murders committed by gunfire, poison, etc. Irregardless, it is utterly ludicrous to suggest that the sexuality of someone as wildly unhinged as a Jack the Ripper would follow some academic 'rule' or would neatly coincide with the expected sexual norms or behaviors of a well-adjusted member of society, be he homo or heterosexual. The rules that apply to us, do not apply to him. In short, if Vanderlinden wishes to believe that the murder of Annie Chapman was a manifest act of heterosexual desire, and eliminate suspects based on that dubious premise, he is free to follow wheresoever that blindingly brilliant insight will lead him. Evidently it has led him to Hyam Hyams, who, we are told, is better than "all the other suspects put together." My apologies for being less than impressed.

On another matter, I realize that Norma still wishes to believe that Robert Anderson sent Scotland Yard detectives to the United States on behalf of The Times, and thus throws her support to Vanderlinden, but this is a case of one's own desires trumping what the historical record is actually telling us. I don't mean to sound condescending, but the plain fact of the matter is this. Due to her deep cynicism of the Tory government (which I to some degree share), Norma is blind to the fact that the American press, or, rather the Irish Nationalist elements in the America press, were every bit as adept--more so, in my estimation--at spreading 'black propaganda' than the government in the U.K. In every instance, the articles claiming that Andrews was in America on behalf of The Times can be shown to be spurious. In one they have him contacting Irish Nationalists in Montreal on the dates that he was 300 miles away in Toronto. Another implies (as did Vanderlinden) that he contacted Le Caron. This was totally bogus. Le Caron was 3,500 miles away and on the other side of the Atantic Ocean. Yet another states that he was conspiring with Shore to blow up a steamship in New York! How many absurdities do these allegations have to contain before you start thinking something is amiss?

In the 19th Century, Lancashire was filled with Irish. There were tens of thousands of Irish in Liverpool alone. Further, one could travel to Ireland from London in half a day. If Scotland Yard wanted to track down disgruntled Land Leaguers --which is what the allegation claimed--they would have merely gone there. They wouldn't have sent an Inspector on a three week trip to Southern Ontario, Canada. Cripes, they might as well have sent him to Bueonos Aires. It's an absurdity.

Norma, I fear, is also miscalculating the esprit du corps at Scotland Yard. Robert Anderson in November, 1888 was an outsider. He was newly appointed, wasn't a cop, and spent most of his short tenure on holiday. The notion that Scotland Yard detectives would have quickly stepped in line, goose-step style, when he ordered them on an illegal, politically motivated mission for his own benefit is delusional. They would have flown to Williamson so fast his head would have went spinning. If you want to get a dose of what the average Scotland Yard Inspector felt about the public-school crowd in the upper regions of the C.I.D. , look to Inspector Reid. It's not a pretty picture.

So my challenge to Norma is this. The allegations in America included direct statements that Andrews gathered witnesses and documents for the Parnell Commission. Produce them. Unlike the Whitechapel murder suspect files, the evidence gathered at the Parnell Commission is still extant and part of the public record. Show me the money. It isn't there. Why? Because it never happened. As I have demonstrated, nearly everything Vanderlinden wrote in his two-part article was deeply flawed. Many of his basic "facts" were not facts at all. I've given you the examples. My dear Lady, was I not suppose to notice ? Would it have made you happier if I towed the line and believed--wrongly--that Anderson loaned detectives to The Times when there is no valid historical evidence to show he did? Sorry, dear, but I can't operate on desire.