Commendations - Challenge!

[David Orsam]

Excellent, thank you very much for confirming Robert.

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

I’m still not sure if I understand this all but I’d like to make an observation about the commendation for Marshall, Littlechild, Swanson, Mott and Andrews for the date 4 November, 1888 (the supposed Tumblety commendation).

Roland Gideon Israel Barnett, an Englishman born in London, was a con man with a long history of fraud behind him (Britain, Canada and the US). He was wanted for defrauding the Central Bank of Toronto of a small fortune, causing the bank to collapse. He fled to New York City in August, 1887, and by the summer of 1888 was forced to flee back to Britain after a US arrest warrant for fraud was issued. New York informed Toronto that Barnett had returned to London and Toronto telegrammed an arrest warrant and extradition plea to Scotland Yard.

Barnett was eventually arrested in London in early September, 1888, on a nine year old British fraud charge, by Inspector Andrews. On the 13th of September, 1888, he appeared in court but was discharged for lack of evidence. He was then immediately rearrested by Andrews on the Canadian fraud charge, taken before a magistrate and remanded into custody without bail. There were some problems with the necessary evidence at the Toronto end (witnesses had either disappeared or were reluctant to testify) but eventually this was remedied and the documentation was forwarded on.

Barnett appeared on the 6th of November, 1888, at the Bow Street Magistrates Court before Mr. Vaughan, Extradition Court, who agreed to the extradition and who committed Barnett to trial in Canada on the Toronto charge.

Given the difficult nature of the arrest and proceedings against Barnett – a long time criminal wanted for three different offences in three different countries, and with two different extradition requests, plus a legal process that lasted for over two months – I've long suspected that this is what the 4th November recommendation is based on rather than on Tumblety.

Sound plausible?

Wolf.

[David Orsam]

Yes, it's certainly plausible but, of course, only potentially explains one of the recommendations for reward.

I'm still working on this whole issue so don't want to say too much at the moment but let me throw one other possibility out there.

In the "Mrs Gordon Baillie" case, Inspector Marshall obtained a warrant for the arrest of three individuals on 30 June 1888, namely Annie Frost, Robert Frost and Robert Gigner (and he went and arrested them). This was a very complicated fraud case. The Old Bailey trial of the Frosts commenced on 23 October (resulting in a guilty verdict) while Gigner's trial was postponed to later.

Now, who was said to have been present at Westminster Police Court on 2 July 1888 when Annie Frost (a.k.a. Mrs Gordon Baillie) was brought in? None other than "Inspector Swanson" (according to the North-Eastern Daily Gazette of 3 July)!!!

And who appeared for the police at Westminster Police Court on 6 August when Robert Gigner was committed for trial at the Old Bailey? None other than Detective Mott!

So I've found a link with three of the five officers to a single case. Nothing found in respect of Andrews and Littlechild (although I think Littlechild had experience in fraud so potentially could have been involved in the investigation).

I don't want to say that I have found answer at this stage but it's interesting.

[Jonathan H]

Many things can be possible, even plausible, but that does not make them probable.

But this is a a minor detail from a much larger thesis that demonstrates that commended by warren or not, Inspector Andrews was investigating Dr. Tumblety as a Ripper suspect in Canada.

From 'Inspector Andrews Revisited Part III: International Man of Mystery' by R J Palmer, published in 'The Casebook Examiner' Issue Four, October 2010:



'If we are to accept the premise that Andrews went to America on behalf of "The Times", a necessary link in the chain of evidence is to show he had been authorized to do so by senior officers at Scotland Yard.'

'To state that this meant that Monro was "against the Irish movement" implies that he would have been equally willing to allow the illegal use of Scotland Yard detectives to conspire against the entirely legal Home Rule movement through collusion with "The Times". There is little evidence that this was Monro's attitude, and, indeed, we have his views on the matter.' p.13


Anderson claimed in a 1910 letter that his writing of the Parnell letters had Monro's approval. Tipped off by Macnaghten, the latter vehemently denied this in a letter to "The Times":

'"The alleged statement of Anderson to an interviewer that it was arranged between him and me that he should write ... is absolutely incorrect ... My principle throughout has ever been in police matters, politics have no place -- and this principle I followed during the whole time I was at Scotland Yard ... whether the government was Liberal or Conservative ..."' p. 15


Sir Charles Warren was actually still, by a few weeks, the Commissioner when Andrews was sent on his North American trip, not quite yet Monro.

'[Sir Charles] Warren, the military man, had a strong aversion to 'secret work' and would have vigorously resisted any attempt by his subordinates to engage Scotland Yard in any politically motivated chicanery. The record is quite clear on this. Throughout the first half of 1888, Warren fought bitterly with Monro, believing he was spending too much time and anti-Fenian work. ... Given such attitudes it is clearly ridiculous to suggest that Warren, who had already announced his resignation in Nov 1888, would risk a political scandal, not to mention his own reputation, by authorizing a nefarious mission to ruin the Parnellites.' p. 16

' ... what isn't revealed [in mundane contemporaneous records] is why Andrews stayed in Toronto for a full eight days inclusive, and thus we are left entirely in the dark as to why he was in the city.' p. 17

'By December 19th, however, Andrews lingered in and around Toronto for another week, and "The Mail" now exuded a far more conspiratorial tone. Under the title "What They Are After" and subtitled "The Scotland Yard detective Works 'The Times' Case" and would be the earliest allegation that Andrews was actually in Canada to drum up witnesses for the Parnell commission ... "Now" [Andrews] said, "as I am leaving, I do not mind telling you that I have obtained some important clues in the Parnell case--things I never dreamed of before. But I can say no more, so don't press me." ... But Inspector Andrews is not the only officer of Scotland Yard in America present on a similar mission. Inspector Fred Jarvis, a bosom friend of his, and also Chief Inspector Shore, of the same department, are in the United States hunting evidence. It is said for over three years three of Pinkerton's most expert men have been at work on the Irish National Societies.'

There are more examples by Palmer of adverse local media reports exposing Andrews as a stooge for the anti-Parnell brigade.

What Palmer does is show us the primary sources, in detail, where Andrews is quoted as admitting that he is there to obtain evidence, documents and/or witnesses against Parnell as really a supporter of terrorism. That therefore "The Times" has not committed a libel against this Irish politician, who was supposedly campaigning for a peaceful transition to some kind of Irish independence.

You cannot help but begin to question the veracity of these 'scoops' for the following reasons:

1. Could Andrews, a highly regarded professional, really be that inept, incompetent and indiscreet as to give the whole game away about the Parnell imbroglio?

Isn't the cover story that he is there for the Ripper?

Why doesn't this blundering idiot then use it?

2. 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).

3. 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.' p. 23

4. 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?

5. Robert Pinkerton publicly denied the story of his agency's connection to all these shenanigans, finishing with 'Inspector Andrews is unknown to us' p. 24

6. 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.' p. 26

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.' p. 28

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.)

7. 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.

A police detective, moreover, who had nothing to do with Irish affairs but who was, according to Walter Dew, working the Ripper case (Riordan fails to mention this source in an entire, very dull book devoted to Tumblety).

Plus as Palmer argues 'where are his results' if Andrews was in Canada on an illegal Parnell fishing expedition?


Did Andrews meet with Canadian law enforcement, presumably about Tumblety if it was not about Parnell?

From the 'St Louis Republican', Montreal, Dec 22nd 1888:

'... It was announced at police headquarters today that Andrews has a commission in connection with other Scotland Yard men to find the murderer in america. His inaction for so long a time, and the fact that a man, suspected of knowing considerable about the murders left England for this side three weeks ago, makes the London police believe "Jack" has left the country for this." p. 42

Palmer argues that '... it is known that Andrews did meet with Montreal Police Chief George Hughes that afternoon ... In fact, it is uncertain how long Andrews stayed in Montreal: one account has him leaving on the 20th, another on the 22nd ... Andrews may well have stayed in Montreal for two days.' ps. 42-3

Thus plenty of time to confer.

Why Canada?

Why do a background on a prime Ripper suspect check there?

Anderson may have mistakenly believed Dr T was an Irish-Canadian.

It has been argued that this seems extremely flimsy because Tumblety had not been back to that country for thirty years.

Palmer counter-argues that this is not so, and provides primary sources to back it up.

George Harcourt wrote to 'The Mail' on Nov 22nd 1888 claiming that Tumblety had been there in Toronto, in 1883, because he had personally ordered a coat from his shop -- and was a hard customer to forget:

' ... He was in the store several times, and being of striking appearance, excited our curiosity. He was over six feet in height, stout and dark. He was possessed of plenty of money and showed us several very valuable diamond rings which he carried in his pocket. ... we have no doubt that this is the same Dr. Tumblety ...'

Both 'The Mail' and 'The Globe' claimed on Nov 23rd 1888 that Tumblety had been in Toronto in Jan 1888:

'Dr. Francis Tumblety who was arrested in London recently on suspicion of being implicated in the Whitechapel murders, was in Toronto for a few days January last. That was his last visit to this city.' p. 45

A reporter interviews Tumblety who is maudlin about the sad state of his health (yet he would live another fifteen years) and who shows off his letters from Napoleon III, John Bright and Lord Baconsfield.

Both the talisman-like letters from celebrities and handy diamonds are obscure details which surely would only be known only to a person who really was in the presence of Tumblety.

There is yet another newspaper report that Tumblety even returned to Canada in May of that year; from 'The Toronto Globe', Nov 23rd 1888 :

' ... his fellow-passengers became much interested in the doctor, who is a man of striking presence, pleasant manners and great conversational powers ... a chasing, reckless and adventurous man but not one who would be guilty of a crime.' (here it is claimed he has a letter from Lincoln)

Lastly there is the tantalizing primary source discovered by Evans and Rumbelow which shows that Sir Charles Warren, in his last days as Commissioner, awarded commendations to Inspectors Marshall, Littlechild, Swanson and Andrews.

'There is seemingly no prosecution in Dec 1888, or throughout early 1889, that refers to arrests made by [the foursome] Thus whatever case Warren was referring to remains an enigma ...' p. 48

[David Orsam]

Yes but Jonathan in all that not once is there a positive statement that the recommendation for a reward to Andrews (let alone any of the others such as Marshall or Mott) WAS for the arrest of Tumblety. Just a vague mention of it being an enigma. The statement that 'There is seemingly no prosecution in Dec 1888, or throughout early 1889, that refers to arrests made by [the foursome]' is not to the point because, as we have noted in this thread (and I could now provide other examples) the recommendations for rewards in Police Orders appear to be for historical arrests for which a prosecution could already have occurred in November, October or earlier. Although the entry is in Sir Charles Warren's name, the normal procedure (as I will show) was that rewards would be recommended by the Superintendent so that it is unclear if this really was an award by Sir Charles at all or something he has simply appended his name to because he has approved the entry in the Police Orders. I will be posting more on this in due course.

[Monty]

Its the latter David,

And it may be worth approaching this from the flip side. Rather look at the announcement, look at the personal file.

Monty

[Jonathan H]

To David

You've missed my point, but that's o.k.

Congratulations on what you have found, and are finding. Great stuff!

[David Orsam]

Monty - thank you for the tip. Do you have any suggestions or, dare I say, recommendations, as to whose files I should look at (and any references if possible)? Am I right in thinking from what you said earlier that Swanson's file does not help us here?

Jonathan -thank you for the comments. Out of interest, can I ask what exactly was your point?

[Robert]

David, if you're going to access individual police records, my best guess for Mott is Edwin James Mott, born Lewisham Q4 1858, died Marylebone Q4 1900. He married in 1895.

He may have a commendation from 1887. Reynold's January 30th.

[David Orsam]

Good idea Robert, I'll have a crack at it.

[David Orsam]

Rather look at the announcement, look at the personal file.

Can anyone tell me where the "personal files" are found? Or any such files of individual officers which list their commendations?

I'm stuck.

[Robert]

Monty will know, but here are a couple of links :

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/records/looking-for-person/policeofficer.htm

http://content.met.police.uk/Site/mpshistoryinformation

[David Orsam]

Thank you Robert. MEPO 3/2883-2921 seems to be the place to go. A bit of a limited range. I see Swanson but none of the others in our 'gang'. I think I know what Monty means now though - he is suggesting I look at some random personal files to identify commendations and then work backwards.

Thanks for your help. I am making progress.

[Robert]

Hi David

If it's any help, here is a record that Mark Pardoe obtained for me some years ago. It doesn't mention any commendations, though surely Cutbush must have had some :

METROPOLITAN POLICE

Number on Pension Register 10282

Commissioner’s office

20th August 1891

Charles H Cutbush late a police Superintendent resigned from this Division on the 11th day of August 1891, with pay to the 10th day of August 1891, to which day inclusive he will be paid, and he is entitled to a pension of £221 -0-0 per annum, commencing on the 11th day of August 1891.

(signed by) W. Davis Actg Superintendent.

DESCRIPTION OF THE PENSIONER

Age on resignation forty-seven years complete

Height 5 feet 9 and a half inches

Hair brown

Eyes hazel

Complexion fair

Particular mark, defect or infirmity by which he may be identified Knife wounds right thigh

Where and when born At Ashford, Kent on the 5th January 1844

Name of father Charles Cutbush (deceased)

Name of mother Amelia Cutbush

Date of joining the police At Scotland Yard on 2nd December 1867

Particulars of service Appointed to A on joining. Promoted to Sergeant 19/7/69, to Inspector 2/12/73 and transferred to C division. Re-transferred to A 19/2/76. Promoted to Chief Inspector 22/12/79 and to Supt 12/5/87.

If injured in the Service state nature of injuries (Blank)

Single, married or widower Married

Next of kin Ann Cutbush wife

Where he intends to draw his pension 3 Burnley Rd, Stockwell SW

Present address (Ditto)

(signed by) Charles Cutbush

[David Orsam]

Having awarded myself a short extension, I have now finished my research into the subject of commendations and rewards and will post my results soon. In the meantime, I want everyone to be able to see the entirety of the section on Commendations and Rewards in the 27 Nov 1888 P.O. in order to appreciate the two segments of "Recommended for reward" and "Note in favour".