New Book

[David Orsam]

After reading everything there was in primary and secondary sources I made the judgment call that Dr. Anderson would not have sent Andrews, in the middle of the Whitechapel murders, to Canada unless 1) it was Ripper related business, and 2) it could not be covered with some other work-mission and provide plausible deniability.

Anyone familiar with the primary and secondary sources on JTR will be aware that Jonathan is hopelessly wrong on this 'judgment call'.

The idea that Anderson would not have sent an inspector to Canada on important official business following a request from the authorities in Toronto unless JTR related is unsupported both by any evidence and common sense and is nonsense. As Inspector Andrews made clear in his press briefing in Montreal on 20 December, there was only one Scotland Yard inspector working on the Whitechapel murder case at the time. That was Inspector Abberline.

There was no public pressure in parliament or from the press for more inspectors to be assigned to the case let alone every single inspector within the Criminal investigation Department. Everyone appreciated that the police had other crimes to investigate, other work to do. The pressure was to assign more constables on the beat, more plain clothes officers on patrol and more detectives to conduct door to door inquiries (but detective-constables or detective-sergeants). No-one – absolutely no-one - would have criticised Anderson, the Commissioner or the Home Office for sending Inspector Andrews to Toronto in November 1888 as long as that trip was not paid for out of the public purse. Scotland Yard had plenty of detective-inspectors but only one was needed on the Whitechapel case along with, uniquely, a chief inspector (Swanson) who had been assigned full-time to the Whitechapel case.

Therefore to say that Anderson would not have sent Andrews to Canada unless it was Ripper related business is about as wrong as anyone could be.

It follows that I don't need to deal with the second part of Jonathan's sentence regarding 'plausible deniability', not only because it is convoluted and unfounded and I don't quite know what he means by it but because it only comes into play if it is true that Anderson would not have sent Andrews to Canada in the middle of the Whitechapel murders which it clearly is not.

[David Orsam]

. Ergo, strip back the hyperbole, and you have Andrews trying to find otu what he could about a suspect who had enormous potential to embarrass Scotland Yard, and to some extent already had.

People who think that it was entirely tabloid hype are, in my opinion, falling for the cover story, or the Irish-American propagandist need, by some in North America, to link Scotland Yard with the Parnell inquiry and embarrass them that way. It was quite a mine-field, public relations wise.

I don't really know what the above sentences mean. Why did Andrews (or Anderson) need to find out anything about a suspect who had enormous potential to embarrass Scotland Yard? Jonathan doesn't tell us. What 'cover story' are people falling for? Whatever he is talking about is no more than opinion, without any evidence in support, so can safely be ignored.

[David Orsam]

Walter Dew mentions Andrews as a Whitechapel detective, yet nothing appears in the extant record except hyperbolic newspaper articles about Andrews chasing Tumblety to New York City.

Walter Dew never mentioned Tumblety or any background research carried out by Inspector Andrews in Canada or anywhere else. So it's not a great source for Jonathan from the start.

All Dew said is that Andrews was one of three detectives investigating the Whitechapel murders but not in what time period. If he was correct, it could easily have been in 1889 and more likely would have been because Inspector Abberline was the only detective inspector working on the case in 1888 (as Andrews confirmed in Montreal).

More likely is that Dew was wrong, having been influenced by the aforementioned stories that Andrews had been chasing an unnamed suspect across the Atlantic to New York. This is what Guy Logan had included in his 1928 book (i.e. nothing to do with any background research being carried out by Andrews in Canada).

In 1888, Dew was a lowly detective constable working in Whitechapel. He was no more privy to what the senior inspectors in Scotland Yard were doing than any other member of the rank and file, all of whom were as much in the dark as the newspapers.

Reports in the newspapers that Andrews had been to America to chase a prime suspect must have been read by some police officers and they would have had no reason, or inside information, to disbelieve them. Dew could well have been influenced by this when he came to write his memoirs some fifty years after the murders. His memoirs are known to be unreliable on facts connected with the murders and, bearing in mind, that not a single official document mentions Walter Andrews having any connection with the case nor did a single newspaper, who were all very interested in the case, report any involvement of his at all in the investigation in London.

Walter Dew does not help Jonathan at all.

[David Orsam]

"The Pall Mall Gazette" was wrong on Dec 31st but also half-right, as Palmer argued to my satisfaction.

Jonathan's argument collapses at the first hurdle it has to overcome.

The story in the Pall Mall Gazette of 31 December had already appeared in the Daily Telegraph earlier that day, provided by that paper’s New York Correspondent. The New York correspondent of the Telegraph had simply lifted his copy wholesale from a story that had appeared in the New York World on 21 December, with the addition of an inaccurate claim that Inspector Andrews had arrived in New York.

The New York World story was that Andrews would be coming to New York to search for the Whitechapel murderer, having received a commission to do so along with two other Scotland Yard men.

Pausing there, everything is wrong for Jonathan’s theory. There is nothing about Andrews carrying out background research on Dr Tumblety (or indeed anyone at all) in Canada.

So far from being 'half right', the story, from Jonathan’s perspective, is completely wrong, as indeed it was.

We know that the story was derived from an inaccurate report from Montreal which was based on nothing more than the fact that, on 20 December 1888, while passing through Montreal, from Toronto, on his way back to London via Halifax, Andrews had given the press a few titbits about the investigation in London into the Whitechapel murders. This led to all kinds of speculation as to what he was doing in Montreal and a belief that it must have had something to do with Jack the Ripper. This was combined with a further error that he was on his way to New York.

In the process of briefing the press, Andrews said something very significant. He revealed that there were twenty-three detectives, two clerks and one inspector involved in the Whitechapel murder case. That needs to be repeated: one inspector. This must be Inspector Abberline. It means that from his own lips Walter Andrews has effectively said he was NOT involved in the Whitechapel murder case at this time.

Of course he wasn’t. He was in Canada having accompanied Roland Barnett to Toronto at the request of the Toronto authorities who were paying for his trip. That is a documented fact.

Unfortunately, the myth of Andrews chasing Jack the Ripper in New York became incorporated into stories in London newspapers (such as the Telegraph and Pall Mall Gazette) and was repeated in 1928 by Guy Logan.

It all originated from an obvious newspaper error in the United States but Jonathan seems happy to base his entire theory on it!

[David Orsam]

The moment you actually begin mentioning specific sources and interpretation of sources, people who are ingrained fanatics -- and who cannot see sources except flatly and one-dimensionally -- usually fold, as in this case.

Those who took my advice from yesterday to review the posts in the Suckered! thread between 18-28 June 2015 will know that I already responded to all of Jonathan's conjecture in that thread (without any, or any effective, response) but am happy to repeat myself in this thread and will now do so.

[David Orsam]

Ironically if Oswald had been taken to court he might have been found not guilty -- like Lizzie Borden -- which shows what a courtroom verdict is actually worth.

The real irony is that it was Jonathan who was distinguishing historical arguments from arguments in a court of law as if there was some more inherent reliability in court verdicts. My point was that there is no real difference in the two, they are both based on the same type of evidence – in the case of criminal verdicts, decided by twelve randomly selected members of the public and always by fallible human beings - so of course you will get wrong verdicts just as you get wrong conclusions by historians.

[David Orsam]

So, it starts with a bang and ends with the [previous] whimper; of a nominal capitulation spiced with a backhander of abuse.

I suppose I should show some grace and accept it as the best quasi-apology I am ever going to get from that quarter.

OK, apology accepted.

I find this quite a bizarre response considering that my post contained no 'backhander of abuse' nor 'nominal capitulation' nor apology or 'quasi-apology' but Jonathan seem to be reading things that aren’t there in all my posts in this thread so I'm not terribly surprised.

[Hercule Poirot]

That we did, but we two found it interesting. And neither of us decided to say that we had all but a small amount of research left that might cause the world to re-evaluate religion, but were not willing to go into details yet until we were fully sure!! That's a relief too, isn't it?

Sorry for the delay in responding to you.

The most funny thing about one particular religion, is that it even assumes that the Jewish, Christian and Muslim God exists simply based on one single document: the Bible. Hence, if it speaks of God, he then must exist (the greatest inference reasoning ever)!!! Another one of those primary-secondary source ongoing interpretations debates!!!

How many deadly religion wars have taken place since this assumption? Now, when it comes to JTR, we keep having confrontations, some of them quite aggressive. However, when will we see a Kosminski, Druit, Tumblety suspect based international war begin? As Don Henley of the Eagles said, "When hell freezes". Given the abundant climate changes theories, there's no indication it will happen soon amongst us Ripperologists nuts. LOL

Now, if I may, I shall go for another pint of one of our famous Belgian lambic beers, Boon Faro.

Cheers (or as Yoda would have said, may the yeasts be with you)
Hercule Poirot

[Hercule Poirot]

Thank you for posting that Hercule. I am very grateful.

No need to be grateful with me, David. It's just a question of putting aside one's way of seeing things for a moment and paying close attention to someone else's mindset. Like the guy said, the mind is a like a parachute, you gotta open it to see it work. He should have added "and breath deeply to better oxygenate your mind".

I hope one day, someone will write a "101 JTR book for dummies", explaining how to formulate premises, gather, analyse and interprete data before coming out with another 'case closed' conclusion thing (I have to much respect for the definition of the word 'book' and preferred 'thing' instead). LOL

Cheers,

Hercule Poirot

[Mayerling]

At Nicea, they basically defined Jesus as being of the same substance as God (consubstantiality) hence declaring heritics all those rejecting this affirmation. They also came out with the creed (Credo) which says that Jesus resurrected since many of the first gospels had mentioned this event. At Nicea, they also decided which gospels should be accepted as the 'canonical' ones, the four ones we know. They were considered canonical before that but the Church had not given it's approbation yet. Many versions of these gospels were however circulating and contained transcription errors. It wasn't until Trent did the Church decide to re-write them and produce the Church's official version. They also decided to include the Book of Deuteronomy.

Man, are we well away from JTR? Sorry about that.

Cheers,

Hercule Poirot

That we did, but we two found it interesting. And neither of us decided to say that we had all but a small amount of research left that might cause the world to re-evaluate religion, but were not willing to go into details yet until we were fully sure!! That's a relief too, isn't it?

[Jonathan H]

So, it starts with a bang and ends with the [previous] whimper; of a nominal capitulation spiced with a backhander of abuse.

I suppose I should show some grace and accept it as the best quasi-apology I am ever going to get from that quarter.

OK, apology accepted.

The moment you actually begin mentioning specific sources and interpretation of sources, people who are ingrained fanatics -- and who cannot see sources except flatly and one-dimensionally -- usually fold, as in this case.

More than ever I am sure that Inspector Andrews was investigating Dr. Tumblety in Canada, and produced a report that Macnaghten read, a report now, like so much, lost to us.

If you want to see why I believe that, then just read "The Suckered Trilogy" by David 'Orsom' because, I think like me you will enjoy it, you will find it interesting -- and you will fail to be convinced.

Speaking of which, I also felt, for years, that the lone gunman theory regarding Oswald did not make complete sense. Almost, but not quite. I had no doubt to his guilt, but the motive was obscure.

Why would this Leftist-Anarchist put his hero, Castro, in such jeopardy?

Further research proved that a classified report by two key lawyers on the Warren Commission wondered this too and speculated that Oswald might have been manipulated by anti-Castro adventurers posing as Castro's people. This was declassified in 1975 and mostly ignored, but I think they nailed it. That is not the same as proving it, which the FBI were not interested in for political reasons in 1963/4, but it provides an historical solution to that mystery.

That is a provisional solution. Ironically if Oswald had been taken to court he might have been found not guilty -- like Lizzie Borden -- which shows what a courtroom verdict is actually worth.

[David Orsam]

That is quite a long-winded way, Jonathan, of conceding that there is no 'data' in existence which shows that Inspector Andrews did anything relating to Tumblety in Canada, let alone background research, and your post perfectly demonstrates the absence of any evidence that Inspector Andrews ever prepared a report about Tumblety following his visit to Canada. All you have offered are a few weak arguments where literally everything has to be twisted to fit a pre-conceived theory.

[Jonathan H]

For other readers.

I am satisfied, in my opinion, that Inspector Walter Andrews was doing a background check on Dr Tumblety in Canada.

That the preponderance of evidence supports R. J. Palmer's thesis.

Just because other people dispute it, and have the right to, does not obligate me to mention their dissent if I think it is empty.

In the final proofs I had originally included the various arguments and counter-arguments about this aspect but decided to take them out, because for me they were smoke and mirrors.

"The Pall Mall Gazette" was wrong on Dec 31st but also half-right, as Palmer argued to my satisfaction.

Walter Dew mentions Andrews as a Whitechapel detective, yet nothing appears in the extant record except hyperbolic newspaper articles about Andrews chasing Tumblety to New York City. Ergo, strip back the hyperbole, and you have Andrews trying to find otu what he could about a suspect who had enormous potential to embarrass Scotland Yard, and to some extent already had.

People who think that it was entirely tabloid hype are, in my opinion, falling for the cover story, or the Irish-American propagandist need, by some in North America, to link Scotland Yard with the Parnell inquiry and embarrass them that way. It was quite a mine-field, public relations wise.

After reading everything there was in primary and secondary sources I made the judgment call that Dr. Anderson would not have sent Andrews, in the middle of the Whitechapel murders, to Canada unless 1) it was Ripper related business, and 2) it could not be covered with some other work-mission and provide plausible deniability.

I also judged that Guy Logan knowing about the Andrews' mission re: the Ripper abroad came from Macnaghten and Sims, in their usual mix of fact and fiction as I can show they were misleading this popular hack writer in the 1900's, but what they were hustling was not entirely untrue by any means.

Finally I argue in the book that Macnaghten misled Littlechild about Tumblety's fate. He did, I argue, partly because claiming that the doctor had taken his own life airbrushed out of existence the disappointment of Andrews' trip. Had the trip not been about the Ripper, Mac would not have needed to bother.

That's my interpretation. Could I be wrong? Of course. I often am. But my right to my opinion is being denied by a fanatical approach to history, one that does conceded they could be wrong.

I have had my odd success over the years. Back in the 1980's I rejected the flying saucer explanation in favor of the crashed weather balloon for the so-called Roswell Incident. But I sensed that there was some kind of agitation among the brass about releasing the story of the crashed saucer. They were concerned or hiding something. In 1884 the Air-Force investigation revealed Project Mogul; and the balloons' classified mission to test for Soviet atomic weapons.

I feel the same sense about Andrews' trip, and have written it up as such.

[David Orsam]

Thank you for taking the time to patiently respond to my posts. It helped me understand your position which I know completely share.

Thank you for posting that Hercule. I am very grateful.

[David Orsam]

About Jonathan's book

Are you saying you added the sentence I'm complaining about after our discussion in June?

Despite asking this twice, and despite it being a question about Jonathan's book, on a subject within Jonathan's personal knowledge, my question has not been answered.

The sentence is this:

'I postulate that as soon as he was able to access the Scotland Yard file on the Whitechapel murders, Melville Macnaghten read the now-lost report on Dr Francis Tumblety by Walter Andrews, the inspector who had done a background check on this suspect when visiting Canada a few months before.'

Any reader of Jonathan's book, reading his book in good faith, will believe that there must be a reference in some file or document somewhere to a report on Dr Tumblety prepared by Inspector Andrews but that the report itself has become lost. The truth, however, is that there is no evidence whatsoever of any such report ever having existed, let alone any evidence of Inspector Andrews having done a background check on Dr Tumblety in Canada. I haven't yet completed his book but from what I have read so far - and I doubt he comes back to the point - the reader of that book cannot possibly know of the convoluted and tortuous argument that Jonathan uses to reach such a conclusion.

I do criticize Jonathan in the strongest possible terms for including the above unqualified reference to the Andrews report in his book. I suspect it went in as a result of his previous personal feud with Wolf Vanderlinden, and that Jonathan was carrying on a forum argument into his book, but whatever the reason, Jonathan knew at all times that the idea that Andrews was investigating Tumblety is only a theory, put forward by R.J. Palmer, which is disputed. I appreciate that my trilogy might have come too late for him to amend it (although he says he did make a number of changes to has book as a result of my trilogy) but he was fully aware that his theory could be wrong. For example, he posted in the Suckered! thread on 24 June 2015

'There are no official documents that have survived--or ever existed?--that prove Andrews was investigating Parnell and/or Tumblety (whereas there are that he was escorting a prisoner back to Canada).'

His query as to whether any documents that prove Andrews was investigating Tumblety ever existed is inconsistent with his claim in his book that such a document did once exist but is now lost.

He also said to me on the same topic:

'Could be I wrong? Sure. I often am.'

But there is not a hint of him being wrong about this background check of Tumblety in his book. You would think it was a well documented fact to read his book.

Within what seems to me to be otherwise (so far) as sensible and enjoyable book it is very disappointing to find such a statement.