Andrews was investigating Tumblety

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

This certainly does suggest that in the months of November and December 1888, Tumblety was on the short list. Littlechild recollecting this decades later means it must have been significant enough for him to remember it.

Yes, this is obviously true, that Tumblety was certainly a person of interest in November\December, but prime suspect? Doubtful. As for Littlechild's remembering (actually, miss remembering) Tumblety, and any significance to be drawn from this, I have pointed out several times before what Adrian Morris once pointed out: that, based on Littlechild's own prejudices, Tumblety was his perfect suspect. He was an homosexual, Irish American with supposed medical skills. It may be as simple as that.

Wolf.

[David Orsam]

This says nothing new, being no more than a reproduction of an article in the New York Herald, hence I haven't transcribed it, and for reasons of completism alone I post it here. It is from the London Evening Post of 5 January 1889.

[Mayerling]

From Hansard

YDefault What Hansard said

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Out of curiosity I checked the Hansard website to see if there was any kind of discussion about Inspector Andrews at the time. I don't know if anyone else has, and if so I am sorry for putting it down here, but it turned out that there were two brief flurries of discussion of his trip to America.

Background is that political bugaboo of 1887-1889, the Parnell Commission. It was shortly to come to a head when Sir Charles Russell would detatch himself from the strange death of James Maybrick in Liverpool and concentrate his abilities as a cross-examiner on Mr. Richard Pigott. T.M.Healy, a leading Irish M.P. and news editor - and ally of Parnell - was to joust twice with Henry Matthews on the subject of Andrews.

The first was on 21 March 1889 (Hansard, vol. 334, cc 397-398):

MR. T.M. HEALY asked if Inspector Andrews, an officer from Scotland Yard, visited America since the passing of the Special Commission Act, and if his business there was connected with the charges and allegations made before the Royal Commission.

MR. MATTHEWS: "The answer to the first paragraph is in the affirmative; to the second in the negative."

MR. T.M. HEALY: "Will the right hon. Gentleman state whether Inspector Andrews saw [Henri] Le Caron [the anti-Fenian spy]?"

MR. MATTHEWS: "I am not aware at all whether he did or not."

The second was on 22 March 1889 (Hansard, vol. 334, cc 519-521):

[You have to keep in mind that the debate is due to a letter sent by Sir Robert Anderson to Mr. MacDonald of the Times of London - Healy is actually trying to show that Scotland Yard is working hand-in-glove with the newspaper that possibly smeared Parnell in the "Parnellism and Crime" campaign, which is actually highly questionable behavior - the police are theoretically politically neutral.]

MR. T.M. Healy: "I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it was by his sanction that Mr. Anderson, as state in his letter yesterday, furnished Mr. MacDonald, of the Times, with the name of a confidential person to support of the Times in what is called the American branch of the case; and, if not, on whose authority did Mr. Anderson proceed? I wish also to ask whether Inspector Andrews, whom he admits to have been sent to America since the forming of the Commission was passed, was the confidential person who aided the Times with the American part of the case at the suggestion of Mr. Anderson?

MR. MATTHEWS: "The question with respect to Mr. Andrews does not in any way arise out of the question on the paper. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put it down."

Of course, Matthews could have been lying - not the first time a high ranking government figure anywhere lied or covered up an embarrassing point. But he may also have been badly out of the loop regarding Andrews' mission to North America (he was useful for political reasons to Salisbury due to his religion - not to his brains). Or, he knew Andrews was making inquiries about something else.

Jeff

You may find this of some interest - I posted it yesterday on another thread.

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Hi Jeff.

Yes, the discussions found in Hansard have been written about and debated here on the boards for some time. The question remains, however, if Andrews was in southern Ontario on some secret mission (and it was a secret mission) connected with the Parnell Commission would the Government just freely admit it in Parliament? Even though this was likely to cause a firestorm of controversy? Unlikely.

However, we are left with Inspector Andrews' own words on the subject. He did admit to at least two Canadian newspapers that his mission in Canada WAS related to Parnell and Irish terrorism. We can, therefore, weigh questions and answers raised in Parliament with questions and answers raised between Andrews and Canadian reporters.

Wolf.

[Jonathan H]

This is an excellent example of primary sources whose limitations outweigh their values.

In fact, we do not have Andrews' words at all about his mission.

What we have is second-hand information by others as to what they claim Andrews said. We have to assess their reliability and bias.

To take such an account at face value is unsafe.

Because is it likely that Inspector Andrews would have admitted such a thing to American newspapers whom he knew to be pro-Irish?

Of course anything is possible, but assuming that this experienced cop was incredibly stupid and indiscreet--and forgot his cover story about Tumblety?--is not very probable.


To summarize from R. J. Palmer's persuasive debunking of this argument:



Supposedly confirming this version of events are two hopelessly biased sources: Patrick Boyle, a pro-Fenian and editor of 'The Irish-Canadian', and R.B. Teefy treasurer of the Toronto branch of the Irish National League. The latter made the incendiary claim that witnesses had been lining up for Andrews buy, so as to perjure themselves before the Parnell inquiry (although the bait has apparently not been taken).

A piece in 'The New York Herald' of Dec 23rd 8888 is suspiciously similar in wording to the one in 'The Mail', with just the city of Montreal subbing for Toronto (and the second version hedging its bets with the title: 'The Alleged Indiscretions of an English Detective'.) The night editor of the NY paper was none other than 'General' Frank Millen, who was a:

'... Fenian skirmisher, extraordinaire, member of the Can na Gael, sometimes profiteer in the pay of Robert Anderson (and later Edward Jenkinson)--the same Millen whom Assistant Met Police Commissioner James Monro would later name as the mastermind behind the Jubilee dynamite plot of 1887. In a strange but perhaps significant twist, it is also known that Millen himself was in negotiation with Joseph Soames of 'The Times' to give evidence before the Commission. As pointed out by journalist Christy Campbell, 'The New York Herald's' owner, James Gorden Bennett, 'delighted' in hiring such rabble rousing characters, filling 'The Herald's' office with more Irish rebels than a Clan-na-Gael picnic.'

On Jan 16th the same paper published an even more outlandish tale that Andrews, Jarvis and Shore had gone so far as to conspire with Irish nationalists to blow up a ship in New York Harbour.

That ruins the credibility of the other accounts, surely?

Robert Pinkerton publicly denied the story of his agency's connection to all these shenanigans, finishing with 'Inspector Andrews is unknown to us'

The similar article in 'The New York World' and 'The Boston Globe', Dec 22nd and Dec 23rd respectively, called 'Polluted Hands', claimed that Andrews had already done 'dirty work' against the League in England and Ireland which is highly unlikely (his known movements show him in London investigating criminal cases of theft) and the source for this is R.B. Teefy.

Mundane records show that the article is wrong about Andrews' movements:

'Thus, at the time Andrews was supposedly soliciting Irishmen in Montreal, he was actually three hundred miles away in Toronto ... This leaves the veracity of the article in grave doubt, but, nonetheless, it goes on to describe secret meetings with a 'resident detective' in Toronto named 'Sketchely', and the subsequent travels of Andrews around the Great Lakes region.'

Thus Palmer has established that the agenda, the details and the sources of these newspapers accounts are all questionable -- especially as it all hinges on Anderson sending an idiot with a big gob (also the physical description of Andrews in this article does not match the real detective, suggesting further falsity, or that they were trailing the wrong man?)

'In truth, those who have put faith in the veracity of these and similar accounts are seemingly unaware that 19th century news reports dealing with Irish nationalism were notoriously unreliable. Not only are there many examples of entirely bogus 'interviews' being published, but the nationalist press frequently printed out-and-out misinformation solely designed to embarrass the British government.'

Palmer provides examples to back up this statement (eg. 'interviews' with William Lomasney who had actually blown himself up, and Scotland Yard were in no doubt about his demise.)

The radical, pro-Irish Liberal, Henry Labouchere, asked in the Commons if Andrews had met with the agent Henri Le Caron (real name Thomas Miller Beach) and the Home Sec. the definitely inept Henry Matthews replied ambiguously.

This is used as evidence by detractors that therefore Andrews did meet Caron, even though it would mean that Matthews was also giving the game away to a hated Liberal opponent, and that Anderson had betrayed his agent, Miller, by revealing his true identity to a police detective.

But the biggest negative against this theory is that Caron was not in North America at the required date to meet Andrews; he was already in England attending to his dying father.

Palmer provides several primary sources to back this up (including the record of the father's death). He also shows that in the Commons, Matthews was much more definitive responding to Labouchere's further claim that Jarvis had been doing the same as Andrews. The answer was no.

Monro, furthermore, was moved to write to "The Times" on April 19th, 1890, agreeing with the Home Sec:

' ... Since I became Assistant Commissioner of Police in 1884 until now, neither Inspector Jarvis nor any other officer of the Metropolitan Police has been at any time within many hundred miles of either Kansas or Colorado, nor has any officer of the force been in America assisting 'The Times', directly or indirectly, in connection with their case before the Special Commission'.

Palmer shows from other primary sources that Irish agents had probably mistaken a Canadian private detective for Jarvis, so the Liberal politician was wrong on both counts.

Labouchere was humiliated, had to pay legal costs, and issue a public apology.

As Palmer argues, for those newspaper reports -- who were known to fabricate to advance their political agenda -- to be true we have to accept that Anderson, Monro, Pinkerton, Miller et al. lied (and lied for years and years) and that Andrews was so useless he forgot his Whitechapel cover story and admitted the truth to the sworn enemies of the anti-Irish.

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Those paying attention will have noticed that this is the fourth time in the last two or three weeks that Jonathan has posted virtually the same post. This is a broken record that he started to play over a year ago on Howard’s site. Repetition of fallacies does not, somehow magically, become the truth.

Jonathan.

This is an excellent example of your limited understanding of what is being debated and the folly of relying on the writings of R. J. Palmer.

This is what I wrote above in Post #49: “[Andrews] did admit to at least two Canadian newspapers that his mission in Canada WAS related to Parnell and Irish terrorism.”

You, then, responded in Post #50 with this: “To take such an account at face value is unsafe. Because is it likely that Inspector Andrews would have admitted such a thing to American newspapers whom he knew to be pro-Irish?” (emphasis mine.)

There is a not so subtle difference here which you have, apparently, missed. Let me attempt to explain.

Firstly, there are two (2) completely separate countries involved in the news reports concerning Inspector Andrews’ visit to Southern Ontario. One of these countries is called CANADA. The other country is called the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. They are not the same thing.

Secondly, I do not know of any American newspapers, “pro-Irish” or not, who actually interviewed Inspector Andrews while he was in Canada. The simple fact is that none did. Reporters from Canadian newspapers in both Toronto and Montreal did interview Andrews, however, and those interviews appeared in Canadian papers. American newspapers, then, simply took the Canadian stories off of the newswire and reprinted them.

American newspapers did add embellishments to the original Canadian news reports. American newspapers did make up stories regarding Scotland Yard detectives working in North America, although these were partially based on the original Canadian reports. Over the years American pro-Irish newspapers did make up stories intended to embarrass the British Government, military and police authorities and Palmer goes to great lengths to point this out. SO WHAT.

What does any of this have to do with the original Canadian interviews? What does the political makeup of the New York Herald, or its bogus story about Scotland Yard detectives attempting to blow up a ship, have to do with the interview with Inspector Andrews first found in the Toronto Daily Mail?

How, in any conceivable way, do the actions of American newspapers ruin the credibility of the original Canadian accounts? The simple fact is THEY DON’T. Nothing that Palmer says about American newspapers in any way detracts from the original Canadian sources. UNLESS, of course, Palmer, and by extension, you, are saying that the Toronto Daily Mail was a “pro-Irish” newspaper that cannot be trusted. Unfortunately for Palmer and yourself this is absurdly wrong.

In 1888, when the articles concerning Inspector Andrews first appeared, the Toronto Daily Mail was the largest, most prominent and powerful newspaper in Canada. It was read from coast to coast. Its politics were Tory and its editorial slant was pro-British and pro-Empire. As a source it is practically unimpeachable.

This, of course, creates a great problem for anyone attempting to discredit Andrews’ own words regarding his actions while in Canada. Palmer attempts to get around this inconvenient fact by using a distraction: American “pro-Irish” newspapers which reprinted the Mail’s articles. They can’t be trusted; they are biased; they made up stories and were attempting to embarrass the British Government. This is all smoke and mirrors. An attempt by Palmer to fool the naive and credulous into looking away from the actual facts.

It is significant, also, that Palmer talks very little about the Mail’s article on Andrews which appeared in the 20th of December, 1888, edition of the paper. In it the reporter goes to some lengths to explain who his sources were and goes into greater detail of Andrews’ movements. Once again, Palmer veers away from this source but attacks, instead, the information from the Mail that was reprinted in other papers. Apparently, unable to attack the reliability of the Toronto Daily Mail’s reports, Palmer, instead, attacks the reprinted stories, cherry picking details that he could discredit. Almost everything you have written (over, and over and over again) is based on these deceits.

“R. J. Palmer's persuasive debunking of this argument,” as you have stated, is no such thing. It is actually a sham. Claiming that “Palmer has established that the agenda, the details and the sources of these newspapers accounts are all questionable” (emphasise mine) is laughably, and apparently willfully, uninformed.

Wolf.

[Jonathan H]

Yo wolf

It took you three years, not one, to reply--to make any kind of reply-- to engage me in a debate which you obviously deem beneath you.

I wondered how you would wriggle out of the thesis, if you ever did reply.

And here it is.

I am unfamiliar that there are two different Americas?

Are you serious?

I suppose not, because no other element of R. J. Palmer's thesis is addressed by you, and I suppose never will be. It took you three years to try and nut out some kind of devatasting riposte.

Your lumping me with Palmer, in your opinion a pair of worthless deabeats, is the highest compliment I have ever been paid on this site.

I thank-you.

This will come as a shock to you but newspaper reports as a primary source have to be assessed case by case, article by article no matter how reputable (you must be indulging in satire?) and in that sense Trevor is right (he just gets the definitions wrong).

If you want to beleive that Inspector Andrews told Canadian reporters that he was there for dirt on Parnell (perhaps to cover for his real purpose: investigating Dr. Tumblety) that is your preroagtiave.

It will not change the obvious--Tumblety was the leading Scotland Yard suspect of 188, though he did not retain thats status.

[David Orsam]

Can someone kindly direct me to the Toronto Daily Mail article/interview?

[Mayerling]

A Switch in Time?

As I have been following the debates here I noticed something which is either just pure chance or may mean something.

It seems to me Dr. T was the chief suspect at least for one day or a couple of days in the Kelly murder (at least) in November 1888. He is charged on the homosexually related matters later that month, then skips. In December Andrews is in North America (either for Dr. T. or for Charles Stewart Parnell).

But what happened to the "Tumblety is the Ripper" theory after 4 December 1888?

On that day somebody dies - although his officially recognized date of death is not until his body is found later that month. And then - does the Yard start wondering if MJD is a better bet than Dr. T.?

Jeff

[Jonathan H]

To Mayerling

In my opinion, the short answer is no.

Druitt was totally unknown to Scotland Yard as a Ripper suspect until early 1891. By then he was over two years in his grave and therefore could never be the subject of an official investigation as, obviosly, he could not receive due process.

I would further argue that Druitt never became a 'Scotland Yard' suspect even posthumously--in the institutional sense--despite a report by the chief Constable gatheing dust in the police archive after 18945 with the former's name in it.

The drowned barrister remained known only to Macnaghten, who with-held this solution from his colleagues. When a very good suspect was arrested in 1895 Mac beguiled his hated superior with a deceased suspect, but who was not Druitt (and not deceased either).

Dr. Tumblety was 'cleared' by subsequent Jack murders.

But when Major Griffiths and then George Sims, relentlessly and aggressively in the latter's case, trumpted from the Late Victorian Era that the case was solved and the fiend had likely been a middle-aged, affluent doctor suspect, about to be arrested, Jack Littlechuild thought this must mean the American (and why not, since somebody he took seriously had informed him that Dr. T may have taken his own life.)

Sir Robert Anderson may too have thought that what Sims was writing about was a [thankfully] garbled account of Tumblety, the less said about the better.

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

It took you three years, not one, to reply--to make any kind of reply-- to engage me in a debate which you obviously deem beneath you.

I wondered how you would wriggle out of the thesis, if you ever did reply.

And here it is.

Actually, Jonathan, I do owe you an apology about this and an explanation.

As you know, we were discussing Andrews' visit to Ontario over on Howard's site. I asked you a simple question on whether or not you knew anything about Canadian newspapers circa 1888. You responded with something like "only what Palmer tells me." I responded with something like "figures," and you responded with a very long, multi-page post cherry picked from Palmer articles.

Here's the thing, your post was so filled with errors, both in fact and in logic (not your fault since you were quoting from Palmer), that a simple, and quick, rebuttal was nearly impossible. I broke your post down into various parts then began at the beginning and started refuting your/Palmer's claims one by one. I took my time, used various sources, adding footnotes where necessary, and kept plowing away.

This took days and, after a while, the whole discussion on Howard's site having ended, it all became past history and, seemingly a waste of my time so I put it aside. However, every once and a while I do go back and work on my response (I'm about two thirds through) so I will finish it at some point.

If you simply can't wait for the finished rebuttal I can post what I have done so far over on Howard's site and then here on Casebook. The rest you'll have to wait for. Fair enough?

Wolf.

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Hi David.

Here are the two articles:

The Toronto Daily Mail
19 December, 1888.
Page 8.

WHAT ARE THEY AFTER?
Inspector Andrews, the Scotland Yard Detective, Works the “Times” Case in Toronto – Police Circles Excited.

Inspector Andrews, of Scotland Yard, left last night for Europe. He leaves this city with an impression that will probably live in his memory for several years. When he gets over to London, England, and tells his co-labourers that a magistrate sitting on the bench daily in this city can sentence prisoners to penal servitude for life they will probably open their eyes. But when he shows them his own picture taken in the police photograph gallery, and along with it photographs of the police patrol system, and informs them that Toronto is about half a century ahead of London in the matter of police protection, he will probably create a revolution. While the inspector was here he was not idle. 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. But after all it turns out that he was doing some work of this character all the same. When confronted with the proof 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 that I never dreamt of before. But I can say no more, so don’t press me.” It is well known that the inspector paid several mysterious visits to parties in the city whom he called his friends, but even to the Toronto detectives he would not divulge these friends’ names. Several evenings were spent in this kind of work, and it is to be presumed that Scotland Yard has an agent in this city. But Inspector Andrews is not the only officer of Scotland Yard in America at present on a similar mission. Inspector Fred Jarvis, bosom friend of his, and also Chief Inspector Shore, of the same department, are in the United States hunting evidence. It is said that for over three years three of Pinkerton’s most expert men have been at work on the Irish National Societies. One of these men is the celebrated McPharland, who broke up the Molly Maguires, and when Mr. Chamberlain was in Toronto last year two of the Pinkerton’s men were his constant bodyguard. The question now is, who are they after? Time alone will tell.

The Toronto Daily Mail
20 December, 1888.
Page 8.

OUR SECRET SERVICE.
INSPECTOR ANDREWS’ MYSTERIOUS MISSION MADE MANIFEST.
His Visit to Toronto Explained – The “Times” Prosecution and Toronto Irishmen – Futile Search for Evidence – What Prominent Leaguers Have to Say – Andrews Shadowed – Diamond Cut Diamond.

The revelation in THE MAIL of yesterday relative to the secret mission of Inspector Andrews, of Scotland Yard, created a profound sensation.
Was it possible that in the loyal city of Toronto some of England’s greatest secret foes enjoyed a welcome asylum? With Grange lodges, Sons of England, and other kindred loyal institutions flourishing by the score, the suspicion could not be entertained. But the Inspector’s statement stared them in the face, and could not easily be got rid of. When the first surprise was over people began reasoning that perhaps it might be true after all. What would be more likely than that fugitives from British justice should find a safe retreat in this quiet and comparatively remote city. Those who reasoned thus, however, went a little wide of the mark. The English detective was not on the hunt for Fenians and Invincibles, and was not engaged in ferreting out political refugees. On the contrary, the Inspector was searching for Leaguers willing and able to give evidence before the Parnell Commission that would tend to make the National League responsible for murder and other outrages in Ireland, and his statement to this effect does not insinuate anything more. But excitable persons quickly conceived the idea that Mr. Andrew’s (sic) mission was to bring murderers to justice, and that these murderers and criminals of lesser degree were actually hiding in our midst.
It is a fact that a paid detective of the British Government, connected with Scotland Yard, has been living in this city for about two years. He was not known to the city police because he had no occasion to deal with them. It would not do for him to be known as a detective. When Barnett was arrested in England this gentleman called at THE MAIL office and furnished full particulars in connection with Barnett’s arrest. In fact he knew the very officer who had made the arrest, the spot where the arrest had been made, and the court proceedings, even to the evidence, were furnished minutely. The gentleman was not questioned as to his business. He furnished certain information to THE MAIL, and that was all that was required. But the fact that he was connected with Scotland Yard and that he was living in this city made it quite plain that he had an object in doing so. The facts in connection with the present case are as follows: —
On his way to Toronto Inspector Andrews told Inspector Stark that he had some friends in the city he intended calling upon. After he had been here a day or so a lady called upon him, and they took a cab and drove away up north in the city. He returned four or five hours afterwards. He made several such calls. To those who were apparently inquisitive he explained that the lady was a distant relative of his. Then, again, there was his trip to Niagara. When he returned from there he carried a large bundle of papers and books. He said these were photographs. What he could want with an armful of photographs was more than his friends could understand. From these circumstances, and from what he said himself, only one inference could be drawn, and that was that he had some object in coming to Canada other than that of escorting Barnett. He acknowledged to a reporter of THE MAIL that there were at present two Scotland Yard inspectors in the United States and that their names were Fred Jarvis and Chief Inspector Shore. Did he consult with either one of these gentlemen while here? It looks much as if he did. McPharland, one of the ablest of Pinkerton’s staff, had been at work on the Irish-American secret societies for three years, at a salary, it is said, of $15 per day. He is at present working up a case among the perturbed members of the Clan-na-Gael in Chicago. Several others are at work in Kansas City, where Irish societies are active, and it is there that Inspector Shore and Jarvis have gone. It is said that the Times’ lawyers are awaiting the researches of the detectives, and what would be more likely than that Inspector Andrews would be the bearer of papers and other important information?
Several gentlemen prominent in National League circles of this city were interviewed yesterday. Mr. Patrick Boyle, editor of the Irish Canadian, warmly expressed indignation against Inspector Andrews and the mission he has undertaken. He believed that the Inspector knew his expedition would be fruitless, and that he had entered upon it merely to obtain a cheap notoriety. If he wanted false witnesses he would have to seek them elsewhere than in Toronto, for there was no treason among the Irishmen of this city. The Scotland Yard man came, and saw, but he did not conquer. He had gone away as empty handed as he came.
Mr. R. B. Teefy, treasurer of the Toronto branch of the Irish National League, and State delegate representing the Province of Ontario at the counsels and conventions of the American branch of the League, was next visited by the reporter. Mr. Teefy admitted that he had read the published statement with reference to Inspector Andrews’ real mission to Toronto, and acknowledged that there was a pretty solid foundation for it, but for a time his candour did not attain a higher degree. At length, however, after discussing several side issues, he became more communicative respecting the subject upon which he was originally questioned.
“I am not surprised,” said he, “that the true motive of the Inspector’s visit to Canada has finally become known, but I must confess a little astonishment that the wide-awake newspaper fraternity took so long to find it out. Never tell me again that a reporter’s eyes and ears are always open.”
“Then am I to infer,” said the interviewer, “that the press was not first to inform you of the duty which carried Inspector Andrews to this country?”
“Yes, I suppose you may put it that way,” was the answer. “Since the Inspector saw no reason to prevent him from revealing his mission, I don’t know why Irish Nationalists should deny it. Would you be surprised to learn that before Andrews left Scotland Yard it was known in Montreal that Barnett was to be used as a blind, concealing his real object in coming to Canada. From Montreal the information was communicated to Toronto. Andrews may be a clever detective, but perhaps he didn’t know that men in his own profession were shadowing him.”
“What do you mean by that?”
“I mean that others beside Inspector Stark were awaiting Mr. Andrews’ arrival at Halifax, and that his movements in that city were watched. Similar close attention had been arranged for him at Montreal, where, it was expected, he would make his chief endeavour to fulfil the duties entrusted to him. He didn’t bother Montreal, however, and it soon appeared that it was in Toronto he intended to do his hardest work. Is it necessary for me to tell you that he was under surveillance here, also?”
“But why should the League go to so much trouble about him? Surely he could not accomplish in Canada anything against Parnell?”
“He might or he might not be able. It was known what he would try to do, and you know from recent developments in the Parnell Commission that the Times is not scrupulous about the character of its witnesses, and that it is not unwilling to buy evidence that will help its case. Canada apparently offered a fine field for the procurement of wretches who would perjure themselves for a reasonable reward, because, as it was doubtless presumed, they would have no reason to dread the revenge of neighbours upon returning home. Accordingly it was here considered desirable to know what success Mr. Andrews was meeting with his search for people without conscience.”
“Do you know if he had any success, or was his visit futile?”
“Well,” answered Mr. Teefy, smiling, “I don’t know much about that but I am in a position to say that if he was not successful it was his own fault. He was offered as many witnesses as he wished to take back with him, for a moderate sum per head and expenses paid. He did not accept the offer, and if he had probably some of the money would have gone to swell the Parnell defence fund. Already the Times has paid part of Parnell’s expenses, and in a similar way.”
“Did the League centres in Chicago and Detroit know anything about Inspector Andrews and his trip to America?”
“Yes,” was the reply, “they were also well informed, and were ready to give him all the assistance in their power if he had proceeded so far west. As you see, it was a case of ‘diamond cut diamond’ all through.”
Mr. Bryant Lynch, who has been a prominent member of the local branch of the National League since its establishment, is reluctant to discuss Inspector Andrews and his movements. Although chary of information, he does not deny that the Leaguers were aware of the actual object which the detective had in view in coming to Canada, and was astonished only that Andrews had openly declared his mission. Members of the League in Canada, however, did not care if Scotland Yard sent all its officers wandering through the country. It would create no alarm if it was learned that English detectives had been in the habit of attending their meetings. Judging by the experience of the Times with some of its witnesses, Inspector Andrews was, doubtless, so dubious of the material offered to him that he concluded to make his return journey alone. Immigrants recently from Ireland could, probably, tell many strange things, but their evidence might not be of a character suited to the purpose of the Times.
Mr. John McPherson, President of the Gaelic Society, was asked whether there was any truth in the rumour that the Gaels in Toronto were in secret league with the Parnellites. He answered that there was not.
“I have heard it said that your society has a connection with the ‘Clan-na-Gael’ organization of the United States.”
This roused the venerable gentleman’s Scottish ire, and, with a flashing glance, he replied “Not the least. The Gaelic Society of Toronto is not a political society. We are Scotchmen, and have no dealings with the Irish organization, however much we may sympathise with a legitimate struggle for freedom from oppressive laws. Our society was organized for the purpose of bringing together those who know and love the Gaelic language, who delight in the traditions and customs of our beloved native highlands and in the noble name of our ancestors. But we have nothing to do with either the Clan-na Gael or the Irish Gaelic Society.”
“I simply wished to verify the rumour which a piece of intelligence published this morning has probably set agoing, and I am obliged to you for your answers. Other officers of the society gave me similar denials.”
“What has been said about the Gaelic Society?’
“Oh, it was current that you were united with the Irish in their struggle; that your society contributed to the Crofter and Parnell funds, and that Inspector Andrews was searching for letters of a compromising character from Land Leaguers to leading Highlanders in this city – letters asking for money, but containing statements which would help the Times’ prosecution.”
“I don’t believe it. It is utterly impossible. Why, the leading Highlanders of Toronto, and for that matter of Ontario or Canada, are the most loyal subjects her Majesty the Queen has, as they are the bravest. Don’t you know that the Queen has her home among the highland hills of Braemar, and implicitly trusts the loyal Clansmen?”
“Yes, so I’ve read. So you think there is no truth in the rumour?”
“None whatever. I can assure you as to that.”

[Jonathan H]

Dear Wolf

There is no need to apologize. We are all busy -- and all have to work for a living. Time is always the implacable enemy.

I thought your revisionist articles on Andrews in Canada were excellent, and a great read. I think that Palmer's are also judicious and entertaining. In my opinion, and that is all it is, the latter had the stronger argument, using a wider range of sources; that Andrews was likely not on a 'dirty tricks' mission.

If any reader checks what I keep repeating from Palmer's essay they will see the rebuttal points to your thesis. The Canadian paper has either made it up or been hustled themselves.

I would just add that it is unsafe to base any historical opinion on a single source. I appreciate that you believe that to rely solely on what Littlechild wrote as late as 1913, in a private communication, by no means proves that Dr. Tumblety was a major Ripper suspect of Scotland Yard's.

A supposedly major suspect who was, furthermore, not mentioned by any other significant police figure (or insignificant one) and whose name appears in no surviving official documentation.

Fair enough.

But I would argue it is equally fair, when trying to make sense of limited and contradictory data about Andrews' mission that to base an opinion on what he was up to on a couple of newspaper sources is also a potential fallacy.

Other sources show--to me--that a stronger argument can be mounted that the Canadian claims are bogus and that Andrews would never have admitted to such shenanigans (and yes I meant North America, not just America).

On the other hand, perhaps another source will be discovered-- maybe today --that proves your interpretation is correct after all.

By the way Dan Norder, years ago, was kind enough to send me your essays and I am very sorry that he left this field--at least the Message Board side of it--because I always found his contributions to be very thoughtful and incisive.

[David Orsam]

Thank you very much for posting those articles Wolf. Very helpful.

My reaction, however, for what it is worth, is that the 20 December article is unlikely to cause RJ Palmer too much difficulty. Although you say that it goes "into greater detail of Andrews' movements" the newspaper itself only concludes: "From these circumstances, and from what he said himself, only one inference could be drawn, and that was that he had some object in coming to Canada other than that of escorting Barnett."

So that is no more than an inference. I note that the reporter has also obtained a quote that "Barnett was to be used as a blind" so even this report is showing subterfuge on the part of Andrews which could involve a double bluff if the Parnell case had nothing to do with his visit.

You also say that "the reporter goes to some lengths to explain who his sources were" but in terms of sources (other than Andrews) its 19th December article only refers to "a whisper". Whether the source of that whisper is any of the three men identified in the article of the 20th as having been interviewed "yesterday" – in response to its article of the 19th – is unclear and, as far as I can see, all three men are simply reacting to what they have read, possibly trying to give the (false?) impression that they knew far more than they were able to let on. Certainly, of those three men:

Boyle – no apparent first hand knowledge.

Teefy – claims to know something but hard to tell if this is just a reaction to the newspaper report – hints that Andrews was there "to buy evidence that will help its [The Times] case" which seems unlikely.

Lynch – "reluctant to discuss Andrews and his movements".

For me, the questions that I would like answered are:

(1) If Tumblety was known to have set off to New York on 24 December, why on earth would Andrews have gone to seek him out in Canada on 29 December? (Palmer says that Tumblety has some historical connection with Canada but so what? Andrews wasn't trying to write his life story I assume.)

(2) Is it likely that Scotland Yard would have sent a detective to hunt for Tumblety in a foreign country before it had obtained a warrant for his arrest? (and we know the warrant was only obtained on 10 December.)

(3) Is it not possible that Andrews' trip to North America could have had a number of objectives so that trying to narrow it down to one will never succeed?

[Jonathan H]

To David

In his essay R. J. Palmer argues that Andrews used the excuse of escorting a prisoner back to Canada to do a background check on this prime Ripper suspect.

This became exaggerated and distorted in North American newspapers in two different directions: as either the detective 'chasing' the doctor back to New York or as merely a cover for scrounging for dirt with which to discredit Charles Parnell.