Tumblety and Pinkerton

[sleekviper]

They spend a great deal of time in Toronto?

[mklhawley]

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

Wolf.

Wolf, you need to take a break from these threads. Don is right. You're personal attacks are needless and pointless. It ruins everything. Besides, it screams of an anti-Tumblety bias. Slamming on Roger is more important than discovering the truth. You of all people should have known Tumblety frequented Toronto throughout the 1870s and 1880s. You of all people should have known Anderson solicited Brooklyn's chief of police for information on Tumblety. You of all people should have known that the source for the Parnell conspiracy (NY Herald) had an Irish-bias. I certainly hope Roger does not reply to your crap.

With respect to Pinkerton and Tumblety's homosexuality, none of your quotes refute my point yet they conflict with yours. Your assumption is that Pinkerton thought Tumblety might have been JTR because of his homosexuality. If true, then Pinkerton would have considered all homosexuals potential killers. That's just plain idiotic. Sure, he considered homosexuality sexual deviancy, but his comments about Tumblety clearly show Pinkerton believed it was a nasty kind of deviancy because of its aggressive nature.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Mike -and Roger ---if you are still looking in on this thread ,
I note neither of you have commented on my posts of the past couple of days, which I had hoped might clear up some of the confusion you and others who post on here have expressed regarding the complex systems of operation Monro, Anderson and that of others were engaged in , particularly with regards to their anti -Fenian work. Complex too in terms of remuneration as well as police duties and more often than not, blurring the boundaries between work that could have been defined and paid for strictly as "police" work and work that was done for, and on behalf of ,the British Government via the Home Office.I illustrated this in a post outlining an "anti-Fenian" "mission" Inspector John Thomson and his wife Martha Had had been requested to perform in 1887, in Bolougne .Helpfully, the source makes for very easy reference, as I pointed out, for in 1910 ,Mr and Mrs Thomson were referred to by name, by no less a luminary than Robert Anderson himself in TLYOMOL, as being the folk he appointed to carry out some reconnaissance work regarding Millen.
Very clearly such appointments would appear to refute your claim that policemen such as Andrews could not possibly have been sent, by Robert Anderson ,[with the authorization of James Monro], on a dual mission that might well have included anti- Fenian work in North America.
Indeed I think its fair to say it puts paid to assumptions about the strict lines of control that were in place in the area in question in the higher echolons of the Victorian Police,boundaries of operation that you and Roger would have us believe would have prevented Andrews being involved in a dual mission.
Finally the extract I quoted from Clive Bloom"s book, draws specific attention to the extreme secrecy involved in all these operations ,suggesting that although our surmises may have to stay as that, for the time being, a lack of information may not be be sufficient reason to say certain anti Fenian espionage activities did not take place,which you would have had us believe.
Best Wishes
Norma

[Stewart P Evans]

Confusing

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

I'm not quite sure what you are saying Norma, nor how it helps. It's all very confusing.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Stewart,
I guess all I was doing in my first post quoting from Clive Bloom"s book on "countersubversion " was to try to encourage Mike to more fully address the complexities of the way part of Scotland Yard"s police system had evolved , by 1887 ,into "The Special Branch" whose senior police officers had a remit to destroy Fenian networks and to report directly to the Home Secretary .So my post was a kind of "point of information" about the multiplex operations of the new Special Branch.

I wonder for example, how anyone is to know,for certain, given the complexity and highly secretive nature of the system what Inspector Andrews had been requested to do apart from accompany Ronald Barnet to Canada?
To cite newspaper claims in North America that suggested Inspector Andrews was there to gather information on Tumblety as the Ripper, seems to me to be falling straight into the elephant trap that the likes of Monro and Anderson might well have set up via their informers in North America in order to conceal and obfuscate the real purpose of his visit while in Toronto viz searching out evidence to injure Parnellites. Add to this that we can find no evidence of Andrews having gone anywhere near NewYork after he landed in Montreal or Hallifax or wherever, and the newspaper claim in the St Louis Republican of 22 December 1888 about Andrews and two other Scotland Yard men being there "to investigate the Ripper in Canada" appears to be just a ruse or a deliberate piece of "disinformation" to deflect from the real purpose of his visit that had more to do with Parnell.
I am mindful too that Tumblety could even have been working for the Parnellites.I think it possible that the Brooklyn newspaper,"The Daily Eagle" that reported on April 27 1890, that "Tumblety ,a couple of years before, was under suspicion on account of his supposed connection with the advanced branch of the Irish national party" ---they could have been onto something.
I am mindful too of the Littlechild letter ,of Walter Dew"s reference to Andrews being one of three main "Ripper Hunters" ---the three inspectors appointed, he said , being Inspector Abberline, Chief Inspector Moore and Detective Inspector Walter Andrews ........! Then there is Macnaghten"s reported remark about the Ripper being part of a plot to assassinate Balfour-though as yet its a bit tricky linking Tumblety to such a plot------anyway we have to leave it to whoever,if ever, gets access to what is inside that file before drawing any conclusions on what it may contain .So I am not dismissing Tumblety either as a possible ripper suspect or as himself an "agent" of some kind.
Just lets not lose sight of what momentous events were taking place in the Autumn of 1888, and what lengths the British Government under Salisbury was prepared to go to deal with the threat of those who they perceived as Irish recidivists and what they prioritised in terms of their manpower.

[mklhawley]

Hi Norma,

I apologize for not replying to your posts. I’ve actually been collecting them, because of the wealth of information you give.

I am not totally averse to your dual mission theory. I’ve just been fighting fire with fire. The anti-Tumblety crowd is actually opposed to a duel theory, since they believe Andrews’ mission to Canada had nothing to do with the JTR case. Although, I do believe Andrews’ primary mission involved the JTR case, especially since Detective Sergeant Walter Dew in H-Division stated Andrews was involved with the Whitechapel murders (as you point out).

Just as Stewart has pointed out, Scotland Yard admits to neither and there is evidence pointing to both. To me, the principle of parsimony supports Scotland Yard secretly sending Andrews to Canada on a mission specific to his job description as an inspector and does not support secretly sending him on an illegal mission against a sitting member of Parliament. Recall it was Warren, not Monro, who endorsed Andrews’ trip. Also, not only would Andrews coming to New York be meaningless if he was collecting evidence, it could very well have clued people in on his purpose was something other than Barnett.

I would like to comment upon one of your earlier posts:
“…So to recap: All Mrs Thomson had objected to was the use of her name and her husband"s name by Sir Robert Anderson in his autobiography, The Lighter Years of My Official Life.She wrote: "I always understood,no police officer-especially if he had a pension,however high in rank,-dared expose secrets of state ---and she goes on to say,"My late husband,Supt,James J Thomson,after his retirement could have written the most thrilling tales of his experiences during his long service,but honour held him silent.Now Sir Robert has written,I feel free to appeal for help.....”

Not only is there evidence that Scotland Yard was seriously interested in Tumblety (Anderson personally soliciting information from the Chiefs of Police of Brooklyn and most likely San Francisco (timing is too coincidental)), their denial certainly suggests that it was something they did not want the press and public to know. This is exactly what Mrs. Thomson may have been eluding to, not the recruiting of Scotland Yard official to help out The Times.

Sincerely,

Mike

[mariab]

A thousand apologies for highjacking this thread again, just wanted to say that the results of what I've found at the Paris Archives Nationales (where I've just finished today) are posted partly in the Missing memorandum 2 thread, and will be posted in more detail in the Kaufmann thread in the coming days.
Many, many apologies for taking up space here!

[Natalie Severn]

Thanks Mike---glad they were useful and thats what I had hoped.Regarding the rest I need to think some more on it,
Cheers
Norma

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Hi Mike.

The “personal attacks” were started by RJ Palmer many years ago, as I pointed out in my post, and have since been aimed at anyone who dares to suggest that Tumblety was not the Whitechapel Murderer. This has been an ongoing thing with him, and other Tumbletyites. Perhaps it is you who needs to step back and reassess exactly who you have aligned yourself with.

With respect to Pinkerton and Tumblety's homosexuality, none of your quotes refute my point yet they conflict with yours. Your assumption is that Pinkerton thought Tumblety might have been JTR because of his homosexuality. If true, then Pinkerton would have considered all homosexuals potential killers. That's just plain idiotic. Sure, he considered homosexuality sexual deviancy, but his comments about Tumblety clearly show Pinkerton believed it was a nasty kind of deviancy because of its aggressive nature.

As I said before, your view is only supported by you by cherry picking one sentence out a fairly lengthy article and then taking one word from that sentence while totally ignoring what Pinkerton said, at some length, about Tumblety and his reasons for thinking Tumblety was the Ripper. Merely repeating what you posted before doesn't change this.

Of course Pinkerton’s views are idiotic. That’s the whole point. That’s why Pinkerton’s views shouldn’t be used by Tumbletyites as evidence that he was the Ripper because William Pinkerton said so.

… Keep in mind also that this article came BEFORE the Colonel Dunham interview, thus, not influenced by Dunham’s article as you previously and incorrectly claimed.

All ask you this again. What, exactly, are you taking about here? Where did I “claim” that Pinkerton’s views were influenced by Dunham? I don’t remember ever doing this. Please explain.

Wolf.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Norma,

Interesting post, and not in the least confusing.

To Professor Clive Bloom's description of the blurred and complex demarcation lines between the duties and responsibilities of the Metropolitan Police and security services [also dealt with by Bernard Porter] let's add these 1888 facts of everyday life–

Plain-clothes detectives watching all major London railway stations.

Watchers at every major UK port.

All UK ports connected by telegraph with London.

Watchers at every major French channel port.

Yet, at some point after 16th November, Francis Tumblety, over six-feet tall and only marginally less conspicuous than a Hell's Angel at a Quaker gathering, jumps bail, gives the cops the slip and for eight days evades all these elaborate security measures to finally board the steamship La Bretagne at Le Havre on 24th November.

Perhaps Roger Palmer or Mike Hawley might care to offer us an explanation as to how Tumblety pulled off this coup de theatre.

Regards,

Simon

[Stewart P Evans]

Seems To Me

Hi Stewart,
I guess all I was doing in my first post quoting from Clive Bloom"s book on "countersubversion " was to try to encourage Mike to more fully address the complexities of the way part of Scotland Yard"s police system had evolved , by 1887 ,into "The Special Branch" whose senior police officers had a remit to destroy Fenian networks and to report directly to the Home Secretary .So my post was a kind of "point of information" about the multiplex operations of the new Special Branch.
I wonder for example, how anyone is to know,for certain, given the complexity and highly secretive nature of the system what Inspector Andrews had been requested to do apart from accompany Ronald Barnet to Canada?
To cite newspaper claims in North America that suggested Inspector Andrews was there to gather information on Tumblety as the Ripper, seems to me to be falling straight into the elephant trap that the likes of Monro and Anderson might well have set up via their informers in North America in order to conceal and obfuscate the real purpose of his visit while in Toronto viz searching out evidence to injure Parnellites. Add to this that we can find no evidence of Andrews having gone anywhere near NewYork after he landed in Montreal or Hallifax or wherever, and the newspaper claim in the St Louis Republican of 22 December 1888 about Andrews and two other Scotland Yard men being there "to investigate the Ripper in Canada" appears to be just a ruse or a deliberate piece of "disinformation" to deflect from the real purpose of his visit that had more to do with Parnell.
I am mindful too that Tumblety could even have been working for the Parnellites.I think it possible that the Brooklyn newspaper,"The Daily Eagle" that reported on April 27 1890, that "Tumblety ,a couple of years before, was under suspicion on account of his supposed connection with the advanced branch of the Irish national party" ---they could have been onto something.
I am mindful too of the Littlechild letter ,of Walter Dew"s reference to Andrews being one of three main "Ripper Hunters" ---the three inspectors appointed, he said , being Inspector Abberline, Chief Inspector Moore and Detective Inspector Walter Andrews ........! Then there is Macnaghten"s reported remark about the Ripper being part of a plot to assassinate Balfour-though as yet its a bit tricky linking Tumblety to such a plot------anyway we have to leave it to whoever,if ever, gets access to what is inside that file before drawing any conclusions on what it may contain .So I am not dismissing Tumblety either as a possible ripper suspect or as himself an "agent" of some kind.
Just lets not lose sight of what momentous events were taking place in the Autumn of 1888, and what lengths the British Government under Salisbury was prepared to go to deal with the threat of those who they perceived as Irish recidivists and what they prioritised in terms of their manpower.

It seems to me that the people posting on this thread each have their own agenda and interpret the material according to what they think as opposed to furnishing solid evidence of what they claim. These hypotheses are all very well if you are arguing for or against a suspect, which is the case here, but they are of little use factually as the interpretations are so biased.

The extract from Violent London quoted above, seems to me very confusing. And Norma is using it to support the claim that Andrews was probably on a double mission and acting as 'an agent' to seek information with regard to the Special Commission. I have not seen any evidence, that you could call evidence, to support this contention. Indeed, what evidence there is contradicts it. As far as I know Andrews was not a Special Branch man. Andrews had arrested Barnett in the first place and, I suppose, was the natural choice to return him to Canada. According to Dew (the only source I'm afraid) Andrews was one of three Scotland Yard Inspectors assigned to the Ripper investigation, along with Abberline and Moore. The official records prove Dew to be right about Abberline and Moore, so did Dew have a memory of Andrews carrying out a Ripper connected inquiry in America?

As to evidence of Andrews not being involved in Parnell-related inquiries we have the flat denial of the Home Secretary that that was not the case in the House of Commons on Thursday March 21, 1889. Mr. T. Healey asked if Inspector Andrews had visited America since the passing of the Special Commission Act; and whether his business there was connected with the charges and allegations made before the Royal Commission. Matthews replied in the negative.

Further to that we have Anderson stating, "Neither before nor during the Parnell Commission did the Criminal Investigation Department either directly or indirectly render any assistance to the Times; I disclaim any connection with any move in a political game..." In his 1906 book Anderson stated, "And I say this emphatically, because I find there are people still who credit Mr. Labouchere's statments that I sent police officers across the Atlantic to tout for evidence against the Parnellites. The allegation was unequivocally denied by the Secretary of State in Parliament, and by the Chief Commissioner of Police in a letter to the Times..."

So we have to accept that Home Secretary Matthews, Chief Commissioner Monro and Assistant Commissioner Anderson were all lying, in print, about this and that totally unsubstantiated press claims in the USA were correct. I appreciate that there are those who will say (as it suits their argument) that this is the case and that is their interpretation. It seems to me that to risk a serving Scotland Yard man making such enquiries (with the huge risks that entailed) when there were plenty of other private agents who could do the same thing is a bit silly.

I am merely setting out facts here, and a couple of personal observations, but those posting will think what they will. They always do.

[Stewart P Evans]

Special Department

Hi Norma,
Interesting post, and not in the least confusing.
To Professor Clive Bloom's description of the blurred and complex demarcation lines between the duties and responsibilities of the Metropolitan Police and security services [also dealt with by Bernard Porter] let's add these 1888 facts of everyday life–
Plain-clothes detectives watching all major London railway stations.
Watchers at every major UK port.
All UK ports connected by telegraph with London.
Watchers at every major French channel port.
Yet, at some point after 16th November, Francis Tumblety, over six-feet tall and only marginally less conspicuous than a Hell's Angel at a Quaker gathering, jumps bail, gives the cops the slip and for eight days evades all these elaborate security measures to finally board the steamship La Bretagne at Le Havre on 24th November.
Perhaps Roger Palmer or Mike Hawley might care to offer us an explanation as to how Tumblety pulled off this coup de theatre.
Regards,
Simon

From your posts it's pretty obvious that you don't understand the working of the Special department and its officers.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Stewart,

With respect, I feel that in so honourably upholding the traditions of your old department you are losing sight of the political imperatives behind all these shenanigans.

Regards,

Simon

[Stewart P Evans]

Uniformed Officer

Hi Stewart,
With respect, I feel that in so honourably upholding the traditions of your old department you are losing sight of the political imperatives behind all these shenanigans.
Regards,
Simon

I'm not upholding the traditions of my old department - I was a uniformed officer in the Suffolk Constabulary - not in the Special Branch nor in the Metropolitan Police.

That there were shenanigans in those times I realise (I'm not stupid), I probably know more about them than you do. However, we are looking at one specific instance here and that requires an examination of the sources, and an assessment of them. That is all I am doing.

[Stewart P Evans]

And...

And we have Guy B.H. Logan, an author with several police contacts, writing of Andrews' trip to America 'in search of the Whitechapel fiend' in his book Masters of Crime -



I really don't know what the problem is, it doesn't make Tumblety the Ripper, but some can't even accept that he was a suspect.