Andrews was investigating Tumblety

[mklhawley]

Hello Mayerling. Thanks.

I wonder about the remark that "MJK's" assailant may have had assistance.

IF SRA recognised "MJK," he may have thought he had a good suspect in mind.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn,

Spiro goes over a significant amount of this in his book. Have you read it?

Mike

[Mayerling]

Hi Mike,

Guy Logan's Masters of Crime [his first book] was published in 1928, 40 years after Inspector Andrews' excursion to Canada.

By this time, Andrews, Anderson, Macnaghten, Littlechild, Monro, Swanson, Arnold and Reid had all popped their clogs.

So who exactly were G.B.H. Logan's police contacts "who experienced the case"?

I'm not certain which example of what information you wish me to provide, but all Guy Logan had to do to learn about Andrews was visit the Press Association cuttings library which, from personal experience of having worked at 85 Fleet Street, I can assure you is most comprehensive.

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon,

You raise a good point, provided the contacts are contemporary to the publication of MASTERS OF CRIME in 1928. However, I know for a fact, Logan was already working as a reporter in 1892, and covered a portion of one of the darkest murders of that year. He tells in one of his books about how he was in the crowd at Rainhill (near Liverpool) when Dinham Manor was being examined by the English police for signs of the first wife and children of Frederick Deeming. And he saw the bodies (covered of course) being brought out. However, he spoils the description by saying it was in 1893, which is a relatively simple mistake of dating. If he was already doing newspaper crime reporting in the 1890s he could have known the gentlemen who were all dead by 1928.

Jeff

[Jonathan H]

To Simon

Yes, that's possible for sure.

It's just that a textual comparison suggests not.

For example, if Logan was trawling press stories about the Ripper between 1888 and 1891, or even just 1889, the first thing he would have immediately seen was that Kelly was not at first thought to be the final victim by the police.

The reign of terror was not over.

That link between Kelly's murder and Tumblety's flight is retrospective only, and a much, much later notion (eg. consolidated in 1898).

This suggests that Logan is working from written, or more likely verbal information after the creation of the so-called 'autumn of terror' which arguably reinstated Dr T as a suspect in some quarters (eg. Littlechild, and whomever he confided in).

Also, Logan claims it was a secret mission. He would hardly do so if he knew it was splashed around in English papers.

Finally, Andrews' investigation abroad is regarded as a failure.

How so?

Because no further arrest of this American suspect as the Ripper was made?

Or, because not enough background information was turned up which could definitely clear the same suspect?

This notion of Jack-got-clean-away, which I think is an unstated theme of Littlechild's letter to Sims in 1913, is also strongly echoed by the predominant Edwardian solution, eg. Sims' drowned doctor super-suspect,who was allegedly so close to being arrested by the fast-closing constabulary. That this suggests Logan is using a later source. (I believe that this is from Macnaghten, the doctor being pursued, and is a fictional adaptation of Andrews' trip to North America, since no police were closing on Druitt -- and did not know of his Ripper link until 'some years after'. At some point I believe Mac misled Littlechild into thinking that Tumblety vanished, and was presumed to have killed himself, which is a fate adapted from the drowned barrister).

As I understand it, you Simon adhere to the theory -- which I regard as untenable -- that Andrews is really up to Parnell shenanigans. I have excerpted many primary sources/examples from Part III of R. J. Palmer's trilogy which he used as evidence to refute this interpretation.

When you have a chance I would be curious to see your take on all that.

[Stewart P Evans]

Belfast News-Letter 3 Jan 1889

Inspector Andrews trip to USA, mention of false Irish Nationalist claim -

[lynn cates]

Red Jim

Hello Mike. Thanks.

I have indeed. But not sure about "Red" Jim being violent. He strikes me as a cowardly bon vivant. Of course, the bugger turns up in every research I've done--and he did have a blotchy face and carrotty moustache.

Cheers.
LC

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mike,

Yes, I did read the newspaper article in Post#6.

And look who was in Montreal at the time of Andrews' arrival.



This is the closest Inspector Andrews might have got to investigating JtR.

The story of his arrival in New York in connection with the Whitechapel murders was completely bogus.

Regards,

Simon

[Jonathan H]

To Simon

Yes, but R. J. Palmer is in agreement that Andrews never went near NYC for the Ripper -- because there was no need to -- and yet Palmer still provided a range of primary sources that the Inspector was in Canada doing a background check on Dr. Tumblety, and not there for the Parnell/'Times' affair.

I am still awaiting a counter-argument to that thesis, and have been since 2010.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jonathan,

Ripperologist #106.

Regards,

Simon

[Jonathan H]

What's in that article?

Do you mean the article you previously put me onto which was published before Palmer's, and therefore does not deal with the same sources which he did?

Perhaps you do not.

But if you do then I would suggest you take a long hard look at the Palmer trilogy, or at least the imperfect summary I did of the third part at the start of this thread.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jonathan,

Yes, that's the article.

And I have read Roger's trilogy more than once.

Scotland Yard had no interest in Tumblety.

Regards,

Simon

[mklhawley]

Hi Simon,

I've just been rereading Rip 106, and it's interesting that you used the Buffalo Morning Express, December 20, 1888, article. It's source was the Toronto Mail, December 19, 1888,

Inspector Andrews, of Scotland Yard, left last night for Europe... When he first arrived there was a whisper to the effect that he was doing some work “on the side” in the Parnell Times case, which he took pains to suppress... When confronted with the truth of his acts yesterday by a reporter of THE MAIL he did not deny it, and said that it would be unprofessional for him to allow it to become known. “Now,” he said, “as I am leaving, I do not mind telling you that since I have been in Toronto I have obtained some important clues in the Parnell case—things I never dreamed of before.

It is clear that the Mail reporter was pushing him specifically about the Parnell Times case, so Andrews was resonding to it in kind. Andrews did not confirm it, but since he did not answer the reporter's direct question, the reporter stated, "he did not deny it." Quite the ploy in leading the minds of the reader. Andrews responded by stated he could not discuss it, but because the reporter was asking about Parnell, he stated he obtained some important clues. Just as Roger pointed out, if he just stated he cannot talk about his mission, why then would he reveal his mission, especially when this was completely illegal? Obtaining clues is a far cry from soliciting witnesses.

Note what the Buffalo Morning Express printed,

IMPORTANT CLEWS A SCOTLAND YARD DETECTIVE’S DOUBLE MISSION
Working Up the Parnell Case in America... Inspector Andrews left last night for Europe. Before his departure he stated to an interviewer that since he had been in Toronto he had obtained some important clews in the Parnell case, facts that he did not dream had existed, but he refused to discuss the mysterious things he had discovered.


This piece you had in your article clearly makes the reader believe Andrews told an interviewer that he was working up the Parnell Case. How deceptive.



Now, what I did like about your article is that Andrews searching for the killer in America certainly did make the British papers. You reprinted the Pall Mall Gazette, December 31, 1888. Did Logan receive his info from this and lie in his book? I doubt that.

Sincerely,

Mike

[mklhawley]

Hi Simon,

I do want to make something clear. When I said, 'How deceptive', I did not mean you, I meant the Buffalo reporter. Only later did the Mail story come out.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mike,

I never thought you meant otherwise.

Regards,

Simon

[Jonathan H]

To Simon

No worries.

We agree to disagree.

PS

Andrews was investigating Tumblety in Canada, and was investigating nothing else.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jonathan,

No problem.

Any idea when Anderson first realized he'd been barking up the wrong tree with Tumblety and discovered JtR had been a Polish Jew all along?

Regards,

Simon