Tumblety and Pinkerton

[mariab]

To Simon Wood and Phil Carter:
Not only do I suspect that there has been some amount of investigation in America pertaining to the Whitechapel murders, I KNOW it for a fact, as the police correspondence between London and San Fransisco proves without a doubt.
Thank you both so much for your well wishes for my search. 2 (out of 3) of the boxes with the London reports to the Paris police on anarchism at the Paris Archives Nationales are currently being used by someone else, but I'm befriended with the guys who bring over the materials, and I very much hope to be allowed to (briefly) look up ALSO inside these 2 boxes in question. I'm expecting inspector Melville to turn up in the correspondence, and thank you so much, Mr Wood, for the hint on the Paris Bourdier-Mongruet detective agency. If I hapen to find any documents which appear promising, I can have them xeroxed immediately, and report back to you/ask you to explain me the details in the evening. Please remember, this is EVERYTHING but my own turf of research (which is up to the late 1830s). I'm quite a bit sketchy on special knowledge about the French Fin de siècle.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mariab,

What does the police correspondence between London and San Francisco prove without a doubt?

Regards,

Simon

[mariab]

Hi Mr Wood,
It proves active interest from both the SFPD and SY pertaining to Tumblety. It's all in R.G. Palmer's part #2 piece in Examiner 3 to read.
Now if you'd excuse me, I'm about to devour an entrecôte and some duck pieces I brought over from the Café downstairs. I haven't eaten since yesterday evening, and I'm about to faint if I don't get something inside my stomach...
PS. Please call me Maria (if you wish to).

[rjpalmer]

This is Anderson at his dissembling best.

Actually, no, it isn't.

The reality that Simon is so blissfully avoiding is that this alleged event was a case of mistaken identity.

The claim that Jarvis was 'working for The Times' in America centered around the unfounded allegation that he had tried to contact Patrick Sheridan, an Irish Nationalist, in Colorado. After learning of these rumors, Labouchere proclaimed them loud and long in his columns of Truth.

He was sued for libel, retracted his allegations, and admitted--in print--that he had been misled; that the man who had contacted Sheridan was NOT Inspector Jarvis (but, as it was later learned, by a lowly archivist in the British Museum named Walter Degray Birch, who lived at No. 3 Grove Road, St. Pancreas).

This was later confirmed by Parnell & Parnell's supporters, and has been written about by the Irish historian R. Barry O'Brien. So neither Anderson & Co., nor Parnell & Co., put any stock in the Jarvis fabrication; it is evidently only still believed by Norma and Simon, despite all the historical evidence to the contrary.

But I fear this is like talking to a brick wall; people will believe their conspiracy theories regardless of the weight (or lack of weight) of the historical record, so I believe I'll just politely leave the scene, with good wishes to all.

P.S. to Mr Hawley: Actually, I'm not saying Shore wasn't in America in 1888; only that Pinkerton didn't know about it, and thus that his letter to the press denying the wild rumors is wholly believable. I'd be curious to know whether Vanderlinden, Norma, or Simon genuinely believe that Andrews and Shore were conspiring together to blow up steamships in New York Harbour! If not, then why are they still putting faith in these outlandish claims, when there is no legitimate historical evidence to back them up? Nor even plausibility.

P.S. to Maria. I've felt this avenue has needed to be researched for a very long time. All the best of luck to you!

[Simon Wood]

Hi RJ,

Just for the record, even I draw the line at believing Andrews and Shore were conspiring to blow up steamships in New York Harbour.

It's a bit beyond their job description.

Regards,

Simon

[mariab]

To Roger Palmer:
Thank you so very much on your well-wishes, and congratulations on a fascinating series of articles on Examiner (for which I confess I still have not read the concluding Part 3, but will do so very soon, as long as 2 different things pending on deadline are done).
By the way, it's “St. Pancras“, not “St. Pancreas“, although I'm been tempted to call it so myself many times, out of jest. Ah, the British and their obscure way of naming locations!
PS.: I assume that the bit about Andrews and Shore conspiring to blow up steamships in New York Harbour is in Part 3 of the Roger Parker series?

[Simon Wood]

Hi RJ,

I've read Richard Barry O'Brien's "Home Ruler's Manual" and also his two-volume work "The Life of Charles Stewart Parnell" but don't recall encountering "a lowly archivist in the British Museum named Walter Degray Birch".

Did you perhaps mean Walter De Gray Birch F.R.S.L., Senior Assistant of the Department of Manuscripts in the British Museum, Honorary Librarian of the Royal Society of Literature and Honorary Secretary of the British Archaeological Association?

Please advise.

Regards,

Simon

[mklhawley]

Hi RJ,

Just for the record, even I draw the line at believing Andrews and Shore were conspiring to blow up steamships in New York Harbour.

It's a bit beyond their job description.

Regards,

Simon

It is interesting, though, that the same New York Herald article that pushed the Parnell conspiracy (Jan 16, 1889 - "Devilish Schemes") also stated this:

I have been told by well informed Irishmen that most of if not all the dynamite scares of the past few years were originated by special agents of the English government. From all I have learned in various quarters it is more than probable that the present scheme to blow up an English steamer in American waters is a plot to create a scare that will have the effect of damaging Mr. Parnell and his friends in their struggle with the London Times and the Tory government and of turning American sympathy away from the Irish cause. The promoters are known to be deadly enemies of Mr. Parnell.

The Parnellites have not much to carry on the war against the English government's powerful journal and depend a great deal upon America for financial assistance. That is the reason, I was assured, that the London Times wanted some "outrage" committed in America so as to alienate the sympathies of Americans and Irish-Americans who do not believe in dynamite.


The source that was promoting the use of Scotland Yard detectives for drumming up business for the Times was the same source that's claiming this.

Sincerely,

Mike

[jason_c]

It is interesting, though, that the same New York Herald article that pushed the Parnell conspiracy (Jan 16, 1889 - "Devilish Schemes") also stated this:

I have been told by well informed Irishmen that most of if not all the dynamite scares of the past few years were originated by special agents of the English government. From all I have learned in various quarters it is more than probable that the present scheme to blow up an English steamer in American waters is a plot to create a scare that will have the effect of damaging Mr. Parnell and his friends in their struggle with the London Times and the Tory government and of turning American sympathy away from the Irish cause. The promoters are known to be deadly enemies of Mr. Parnell.

The Parnellites have not much to carry on the war against the English government's powerful journal and depend a great deal upon America for financial assistance. That is the reason, I was assured, that the London Times wanted some "outrage" committed in America so as to alienate the sympathies of Americans and Irish-Americans who do not believe in dynamite.


The source that was promoting the use of Scotland Yard detectives for drumming up business for the Times was the same source that's claiming this.

Sincerely,

Mike

Unnamed Irish republican sympathizer criticizes British Intelligence agency. It was ever thus.

Its not just one side who looks for favourable PR by planting news stories.

[Natalie Severn]

It is interesting, though, that the same New York Herald article that pushed the Parnell conspiracy (Jan 16, 1889 - "Devilish Schemes") also stated this:

I have been told by well informed Irishmen that most of if not all the dynamite scares of the past few years were originated by special agents of the English government. From all I have learned in various quarters it is more than probable that the present scheme to blow up an English steamer in American waters is a plot to create a scare that will have the effect of damaging Mr. Parnell and his friends in their struggle with the London Times and the Tory government and of turning American sympathy away from the Irish cause. The promoters are known to be deadly enemies of Mr. Parnell.

The Parnellites have not much to carry on the war against the English government's powerful journal and depend a great deal upon America for financial assistance. That is the reason, I was assured, that the London Times wanted some "outrage" committed in America so as to alienate the sympathies of Americans and Irish-Americans who do not believe in dynamite.


The source that was promoting the use of Scotland Yard detectives for drumming up business for the Times was the same source that's claiming this.

Sincerely,

Mike

Hi Mike,
I quote from Professor Clive Bloom"s Violent London:
"Countersubversion in the late nineteenth century had evolved from a civilian [if effective] spy network into the professional work of a police cadre.In the mid-1880"s there were five such bodies:

-uniformed police on guard duty at public buildings;
-port of entry officers including plainclothes detectives;
-special duty 'Irish Branch' men stationed at Central Office;
-two intelligence sections;
-and the R.I.C.

With changes to this organization came James Monro,known semi-officially as the "Secret Agent".With Monro came a growing bureaucratization of these forces,with a central group of senior detectives recruited in the war against Fenians.These detectives would now be paid secretly from imperial coffers rather than on the Metropolitan payroll.[my emphasis] The complexities of the system can be seen by the fact that Scotland Yard"s Special Branch was separate from the Irish Branch,known as Section D and recruited from special duty CID personnel until 1911,to confuse matters further the original special Branch consisted simply of four senior officers recruited by Monro in 1887.This was quite different from the 'Special Irish Branch ' of CID officers,which was counted asa special unit.Moreover it suffered from a distinct lack of identity being variously called the Special Confidential Section, Special [secret] Branch and Home Office Crime Department :Special Branch.
These new groupings,which became "Special Branch",were highly secret and [U]made every effort to frustrate enquiries into their purpose and organization.
[/U] They were secret too because they were a national police force ,which carried out political surveillance and arrest when no such force was meant to exist,being against Victorian principles of policing."Lastly they reported directly to the Home Secretary,their remit "to destroy Fenian and 'anarchist' networks.

from "Violent London, 2,000 years of Riots,Rebels and Revolts " by Clive Bloom, Professor of English and American Studies,Middlesex University,2003.


I hope this helps ,
Norma

[Simon Wood]

Hi Norma,

Thanks for that.

Bernard Porter, "Origins of the Vigilant State" [1987], adds an important detail–

"For the purposes of administration these men [Section D/Special Branch etc] had to be members of the CID 'and not be ostensibly distinguished from other Constables of that Force . . .'"

Therefore, at any given time it was impossible for anyone to be certain if the nice Inspector X was wearing his CID bowler or Section D fedora.

An intriguing notion, especially in the case of Abberline.

Regards,

Simon

[Natalie Severn]

I know Simon and dont forget the orange one -it underpinned much.
Thanks for that extra bit---very important.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jason,

The "unnamed Irish republican sympathizer" was Patrick Egan.

See "Daring Dynamite Plot", Galveston Daily News, 17th January 1889.

Regards,

Simon

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Don't run away now Mr. Palmer, I'm just getting to you.

In 2005 the first part of my two part article on Inspector Andrews’ trip to Toronto was published in Ripper Notes Magazine. Without bothering to wait for the full argument to be published you, Mr. Palmer, rushed onto the boards here at Casebook and declared that I had lied about some of the information in my article. You demanded that I publish the source and suggested that I couldn’t because I had made up the information in order to poke a large hole in the Tumblety theory. I published the source – Stewart Evans and Paul Gainey’s book The Lodger – giving edition and page number. You then declared “Yup, just as I suspected: you were referring to Tumblety's own pamphlet.” I was then contacted by another researcher who sent me a copy of the Washington City Directory which proved, once more, exactly what I had written.

Why do I bring this up Mr. Palmer? For the simple fact that this is a clear example of the lengths and depths you will, and have, gone to in order to attack any opposition to your precious theory that Tumblety was the Whitechapel Murderer. You could not wait for all the evidence to be presented because why wait when you were going to attack it regardless? When the source you demanded was given to you, you ignored what I had written, declared that you knew the information did in fact exist and then made up a source of your own in order to attack your own straw man rather than Evans and Gainey. When the information was proved beyond question you then failed to apologize to me for calling me a liar and, much later, you denied on these boards that the incident had never happened.

Here is the “character” of Roger Palmer writ large. Someone with no honour, little scruples and less courage. A person who would say anything, twist any fact, ignore any evidence in order to support his own pet theory. Everyone should keep this in mind.

I already posted the gist of the original discussion, which Palmer seems to have missed, so I’ll do it again.

There had been a discussion on Andrew Cook’s book on William Melville and its, supposed, evidence against Tumblety which had morphed, as these things usually do on the boards, into a discussion of American police attitudes towards Tumblety as a Ripper candidate (this was THE ORIGINAL POINT).

A. P. Wolfe had stated that, to his knowledge, William Pinkerton didn’t think Tumblety was a good suspect. Palmer then posted the same, or similar, newspaper account that Mike has above showing that Pinkerton actually did consider Tumblety a good candidate. I then pointed out that Pinkerton’s belief was based on Tumblety’s homosexuality and so his reasoning was greatly flawed and, to my mind, worthless. Palmer, however, stated that I was wrong because homosexuality and violence were linked by one of the FBI’s top profilers (I think it was Roy Hazelwood) and that, therefore, Pinkerton’s views were correct. He later posted something similar on another board I seem to recall. Sad, really.

So, to re-cap. It was Palmer who said I was wrong for saying that Pinkerton’s statement, linking Tumblety to the Ripper Murders because Tumblety was an homosexual, was asinine. It was Palmer who supporting Pinkerton’s opinion and he then used FBI profiler Roy Hazelwood to back this up. Up until this time no one had mentioned the FBI or profiling (this was not THE ORIGINAL POINT as Palmer dishonestly seems to want everyone to believe). At no time did Palmer state that Pinkerton was wrong, or that his opinion was wrong he just said that A. P. Wolfe and I were wrong for rejecting Pinkerton’s opinion out of hand. At no time did he explain himself or say that he “…did not agree with that ridiculous suggestion.” At no time did he mention that his “favorite person in the whole world” was Gay (which, if true, makes his words even more distasteful).

I think the problem here is that Palmer, like every other Tumblety supporter, is like a drowning man desperately clutching at the few straws he can find, or fabricate, in order to bolster his views. The original discussion, as I have stated, turned towards American police theories about Tumblety’s guilt. Here was an opportunity to show that William Pinkerton, a detective of some fame, thought that Tumblety was the Ripper. This was too good to pass up.

Palmer attempted to edit out Pinkerton’s homophobic views but, unfortunately for him, he got caught. How could he back down now? How could he switch from giving Pinkerton as an example of an American policeman who supported his own theories about Tumblety to agreeing that Pinkerton’s views were unsupportable? Well, he didn’t. Instead he attempted to brass it out by posting that Roy Hazelwood, at least, supported Pinkerton and that, therefore, I was wrong. If Palmer had explained himself then that would have been the end of it but he didn’t.

How untrustworthy is Palmer? Well, lets look at a couple of the other little pearls of wisdom.

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.

It should be understood that Palmer is the master of the “straw man” argument. Unable to debate, or counter, what you have actually written he finds it much easier to make up things which he claims you have said. This is the refuge of the intellectually bankrupt. The above is a perfect example. An advocate of the vacuous 19th Century concept of “lustmort?” Hmm, I wouldn’t have thought so but apparently I repeated this view “again and again on the original Casebook message boards.” Palmer says it so it must be true? Apparently I even repeated “the wildly dubious Freudianism that the knife 'represented the penis' and thus the Ripper was ‘copulating’ with his victims. Oh dear.” Mr. Palmer’s tender sensitivities aside I would love to see exactly where I posted this and when because I don’t recall ever stating this. In fact, it’s almost as if Palmer has made the whole thing up.

Palmer then follows this up with one of his little lectures/rants about how the Ripper Murders weren’t sexual in nature. Experienced law enforcement and mental health personnel from 1888 until today are all wrong, you see, because R. J. Palmer knows so much more than they do. Or, at least, he has to explain how the murders can be sexual in nature if the victims were women and his suspect was a homosexual man. Doesn’t add up so, therefore, there simply can’t be a sexual component to the murders. Female victims, attacks to the lower abdomen and genital area, the uterus of two victims not only removed but taken away, bodies displayed in an overtly sexually suggestive position? No, no sexual component there (as long as you’re a Tumblety supporter, that is). See the ridiculous lengths this man will go to in order to support Tumblety?

Palmer finishes his sermon to me by stating this:

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.

Notice that at the bottom there Palmer has put a sentence in quotation marks. This indicates that he is quoting someone, apparently me since he’s talking about my supposed views. Quotation marks are used to indicate exactly what was written but I didn’t remember ever having written these words. That’s because I didn’t.

They seem to come from the “5 Questions With:” board over at JtRForums. What I really said was, “Was he the Ripper? Probably not, but he makes a better candidate than most of the modern suspects put together.” Notice the subtle differences. Palmer edits out the bit where I state that Hyams was probably not the Ripper. He also edits out the word “candidate” and the words “most of the modern.” What he is left with is not what I wrote but, again, another example of his preferred “straw man” argument. The fact that he puts quotation marks around his fiction and tries to sell it as fact indicates the low level to which he will stoop in order to attack others who don’t share his views on Tumblety. Even to the extent of supported Pinkerton’s views on Tumblety and his homosexuality.

Wolf.

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Hi Wolf,

I haven't checked Casebook for awhile and I noticed I ruffled some anti-Tumblety feathers. Trevor, you're such a follower. I'll review this soon and reply.

Still waiting for a reply here and on the Andrews and Tumblety board Mike.

Wolf.