The Suicide of Pigott

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

To stop your yapper, in the next edition of my book—and, yes, there will be one—I will change "arrived" to "travelled."

There. Better?

No, still wrong. He did not shoot himself in the head with a pistol "as two detectives travelled from Scotland Yard to arrest him".

He was already dead when they set off on their journey. Don't you get it?

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

To stop your yapper, in the next edition of my book—and, yes, there will be one—I will change "arrived" to "travelled."

There. Better?

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

If you didn't think it was the two Scotland Yard officers (actually Quinn and Lowe) who murdered him then why does the false statement remain in the third iteration of your book that Pigott:

"shot himself in the head with a pistol as two detectives arrived from Scotland Yard to arrest him." ?

I have certainly told you that this is untrue so why have you kept it in your book? Do you have a policy of publishing false statements?

And I have to ask myself why you have published a false statement.

Given that you have already told me in this thread (#33) that if you had been in charge at Scotland Yard you would have followed "orders" and prevented Pigott from reappearing at the Special Commission (i.e. have him murdered) what other sensible conclusion can anyone possibly draw from the fact that you falsely claim that he shot himself "as two detectives arrived from Scotland Yard to arrest him" than that those two men murdered him?

You haven't answered any of these questions Simon.

You've deleted quite a lot of stuff in the latest iteration of your book in response to my articles but you've left in the claim that Pigott shot himself as detectives arrived from Scotland Yard to arrest him.

Why? Is it because you actually believe it is true? Or do you simply not care whether the contents of your book are true or false?

[David Orsam]

Why should I accept that Pigott committed suicide? Because you keep stamping your foot and insisting it's what happened?

No, of course not. The reason is because anything other than suicide is literally impossible, as I've already explained at length (based on the evidence, you know, that thing you keep ignoring).

Parnell & Co gained by Pigott's death, which was a disaster for The Times.

There's a possible scenario in there somewhere.

No there really isn't "a possible scenario" in there somewhere, Simon, because Parnell & Co did not have the ability to pull off such a remarkable assassination in a foreign country, at such short notice, making it look like suicide, involving an absolutely massive cover-up by the Spanish authorities.

And "Parnell & Co" was not the name of a secret group of assassins either.

Furthermore, the motive was nowhere near strong enough considering that Pigott had been destroyed in the witness box.

A third possibility? Certainly, but time will tell.

Don't be ridiculous. Time never tells with you, Simon, other to kick something into the long grass never to be spoken of again.

I will not pin my colours to a specific theory because [a] in doing so I would be obliged to make all the pieces fit into one homogenous whole, and [b] because the events of 1888 and 1889 were not homogenous.

Translation - Because you haven't got a clue and you can't put together any form of even near coherent theory to explain the events of 1888 and 1889 which, for any normal, non-conspiracy theorist, are perfectly easy to explain.

In 1888 we are dealing with a series of discrete events which were made to look homogenous.

A conspiracy theory in other words!!!!

But one you, unfortunately, cannot articulate.

I'm not a hard-boiled conspiracy theorist.

Oh you certainly are Simon, you just can't admit it to yourself.

I simply know a rat when I smell one.

Unfortunately, that is the whole problem. You don't know a rat when you smell one. You have defective nostrils. Smelling rats where they don't actually exist.

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

Why should I accept that Pigott committed suicide? Because you keep stamping your foot and insisting it's what happened?

Parnell & Co gained by Pigott's death, which was a disaster for The Times.

There's a possible scenario in there somewhere.

A third possibility? Certainly, but time will tell.

I will not pin my colours to a specific theory because [a] in doing so I would be obliged to make all the pieces fit into one homogenous whole, and [b] because the events of 1888 and 1889 were not homogenous.

In 1888 we are dealing with a series of discrete events which were made to look homogenous.

I'm not a hard-boiled conspiracy theorist.

I simply know a rat when I smell one.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

There is a third possibility, but you're not ready for it. Your blood pressure would go through the roof.

Anyway, you carry on believing the 'official' version and I will try to discover what really happened.

I'll get back to you.

The version I believe is the one based on credible, reliable and authentic documentary evidence.

There is absolutely no chance of you discovering "what really happened", Simon, not only because you are not very good at that type of thing but also because what really happened is that Pigott committed suicide which you don't seem to be able to accept.

And there is no "third possibility". You are deluding yourself, just like you delude yourself in your book when you say "I am not a hard or even soft-boiled conspiracy theorist". As you keep showing in this thread, you are about as hard boiled a conspiracy theorist as it is possible to be, albeit that you don't attach your colours to a specific conspiracy theory, being open to every single one of them.

[David Orsam]

I do not believe Pigott committed suicide. It doesn't fit with his dash from London and the trail of breadcrumbs he scattered in his wake. It was too convenient. It allowed a lot of people to breathe a collective sigh of relief.

Murder fits perfectly.

Murder does not fit at all, in any way, for the reasons I've already given about two independent Spanish witnesses standing at the door of the hotel room while Pigott shot himself in the head. Murder is a complete non-starter.

Plus you are wrong about the convenience of his death. As I've said many times, it was a disaster for the Times. They lost the opportunity to re-examine Pigott and try and recover some of problems from his cross-examination.

Your belief that a lot of people breathed "a collective sigh of relief" is just another conspiracy fantasy of yours. There is no substance behind it. No-one really gained anything by his death other than Parnell & Co. but even then not much.

And of course suicide fits with his dash to Spain. He didn't want to go to prison! What was going to happen after his arrest by a Spanish police officer? Yes, that is right, prison! And he didn't leave "breadcrumbs" behind him. He wrote privately to William Shannon hoping that Shannon would help him but Shannon betrayed him.

It all fits and makes 100% perfect sense.

[David Orsam]

And in 1907 Anderson wrote, "Pigott, I repeat, had no part in writing the letter, and he believed it to be genuine. The hand that wrote it was that of Arthur O’Keefe, assistant sub-editor of Mr. William O’Brien’s paper, United Ireland . . ."

How does that factor into the scenario? Who was playing whom?

I've dealt with Anderson's comments about O'Keefe very fully in part 1 of the Suckered! Quadrilogy.

http://www.orsam.co.uk/0743part1.htm

What do you think it has got to do with the suicide of Pigott?

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

You can parse all this in many different ways.

The Times headline was saying 'suicide of someone supposed to be Pigott.'

Le Petit Journal was saying much the same—'It is not believed by the House of Commons that it was Pigott who committed suicide in Madrid.'

They are actually two different things.

The Times was, quite properly, being cautious because body had not yet been identified as Pigott.

Le Petit Journal was saying that it was positively not believed to be Pigott (by some unidentified individuals).

But the only issue is about identity, not whether it was a suicide or murder.

After 2nd March the issue was resolved and Pigott was positively identified.

So there's nothing to see here.

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

You can parse all this in many different ways.

The Times headline was saying 'suicide of someone supposed to be Pigott.'

Le Petit Journal was saying much the same—'It is not believed by the House of Commons that it was Pigott who committed suicide in Madrid.'

And in 1907 Anderson wrote, "Pigott, I repeat, had no part in writing the letter, and he believed it to be genuine. The hand that wrote it was that of Arthur O’Keefe, assistant sub-editor of Mr. William O’Brien’s paper, United Ireland . . ."

How does that factor into the scenario? Who was playing whom?

I do not believe Pigott committed suicide. It doesn't fit with his dash from London and the trail of breadcrumbs he scattered in his wake. It was too convenient. It allowed a lot of people to breathe a collective sigh of relief.

Murder fits perfectly.

There is a third possibility, but you're not ready for it. Your blood pressure would go through the roof.

Anyway, you carry on believing the 'official' version and I will try to discover what really happened.

I'll get back to you.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

As for the report in La Union Catolica of 8 March 1889, it is taken directly from the French newspaper, Le Gaulois, of 5 March 1889.

Le Gaulois had earlier expressed doubts of Pigott's suicide but not on the basis that he had been murdered. The scepticism was that the initial telegraphed reports from Spain were either false or mistaken.

Here is what a sceptical Le Gaulois published on 3 March 1889, in a story presumably written on 2 March (as translated from the French):

"The newspapers of Madrid and London announce that Pigott has killed himself in a hotel in Madrid, and that a letter has been found on him addressed to M. Labouchere, and in which Pigott confirms the falsity of the letters published by the Times. We do not have any faith in this news. To go from London to Paris, and from Paris to Madrid, there must be no lack of resources, and Pigott was very embarrassed, for he had managed to send to his family only five pounds, or one hundred and twenty-five francs. We believe and claim, until further informed, that the temporary disappearance of Pigott was necessary in order that the Parnell affair might be suppressed, and the more evidence accumulated against him, the more his death appears to us unacceptable.

When the calm is restored, we shall see Pigott reappear."

A very speculative story in other words, based on the notion that Pigott didn't have enough money to get to Madrid, and clearly thinking that Pigott was still alive so that he would eventually "reappear".

The following day, however, the same (now shamefaced) newspaper published this:

"Pigott committed suicide in Madrid, and his identity leaves no doubt. There is irrefutable evidence gathered by the investigating judge and the English Ambassador etc. etc."

That would have been that except for the fact that the day after that, 5 March, Le Petit Journal published this one line story from London which was dated 3 March:

"It is not believed in the House [of Commons] that Pigott has committed suicide in Madrid, as telegraphic agencies have stated."

Again, bearing in mind that this story is dated Sunday 3 March, the day after the first reports of Pigott's suicide broke, the newspaper is probably doing no more than reflecting doubts held on the previous day about the reliability of telegraphed reports from Spain.

But this report by Le Petit Journal was enough for Le Galois of 5 March to refer to its earlier (discredited) story and stated:

"Le Gaulois is not the only one who has doubts of the suicide of the real Pigott in Madrid. This is what is telegraphed from London to Le Petit Journal:

It is not believed in the House that Pigott committed suicide in Madrid, as the agencies telegraphed."

So this was just repeating what Le Petit Journal had said with the remark that it might have been an imposter who had committed suicide, i.e. not "the real Pigott".

But it was THIS story which was picked up by La Union Catolica a full three days later with some added speculation about who in the House was doubting the suicide.

When one sees that this story was published on 8 March 1889, it might seem like there was a body of opinion in the House of Commons (not, amazingly, picked up by newspapers in London) thinking that Pigott had been murdered, despite all the detailed accounts which had, by then, been published of his suicide.

But the reality is that the story was not saying that Pigott had been murdered and the story was only based on a lack of knowledge of events in London on 2 March when the news from Spain was sparse. Even the Times of 2 March 1889 carried the headline "SUPPOSED SUICIDE OF PIGOTT" because the facts had not by that stage been properly established. All it could say was that a gentleman "answering in every respect the description of Pigott" had shot himself.

So no wonder there would have been people in London on 2 March who dismissed the story, thinking it was way too convenient. Some, no doubt, would have thought it was impossible for Pigott to have reached Spain so quickly, or at all if he couldn't afford it. It was also being reported on 2 March that the man who committed suicide was using the name "Roland Ponsonby" so, again, more room for doubt that it really was Pigott.

Once the facts were established, though, as they were over the next day or two, it was a very different story.

[David Orsam]

I thought it worth re-posting one of Robert St Devil's Spanish newspaper cuttings.

I'm sure you noted the conclusion of the La Union Catolica report Simon which says:

"The Times and all of M. Parnell's enemies may have an interest in not giving credit to the news; but they will have no choice but to believe it, especially when those denying it have an interview with Mr. Quinn upon his return to London."

[David Orsam]

No, it's you who fantasizes that I believe Quinn and Owen were Pigott's assassins.

The only fantasy, Simon, is the one in your head that Pigott was murdered to prevent him from reappearing at the Special Commission.

If you didn't think it was the two Scotland Yard officers (actually Quinn and Lowe) who murdered him then why does the false statement remain in the third iteration of your book that Pigott:

"shot himself in the head with a pistol as two detectives arrived from Scotland Yard to arrest him." ?

I have certainly told you that this is untrue so why have you kept it in your book? Do you have a policy of publishing false statements?

And I have to ask myself why you have published a false statement.

Given that you have already told me in this thread (#33) that if you had been in charge at Scotland Yard you would have followed "orders" and prevented Pigott from reappearing at the Special Commission (i.e. have him murdered) what other sensible conclusion can anyone possibly draw from the fact that you falsely claim that he shot himself "as two detectives arrived from Scotland Yard to arrest him" than that those two men murdered him?

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

No, it's you who fantasizes that I believe Quinn and Owen were Pigott's assassins.

Anyway, tonight I went to our local Tapas Bar . . .



. . . and raised a glass of Old Gran Reserva to the memory of Richard Pigott, bumped off by goodness knows who so he wouldn't reappear at the Special Commission.

I thought it worth re-posting one of Robert St Devil's Spanish newspaper cuttings.

La Union Catolica, 8th March 1889—

FOREIGN NEWS
[Some parties believe that] it is not true that Mr. Pigott committed suicide in Madrid.

The Gaulois was first not to believe that Pigott committed suicide; but now, it turns out that neither does the House of London.

Here is the telegraph sent from London to the Petit Journal, Paris:

'It is not believed in the House that Pigott committed suicide in Madrid as the Agencies telegraphed it.'

The Times and all of M. Parnell's enemies may have an interest in not giving credit to the news; but they will have no choice but to believe it, especially when those denying it have an interview with Mr. Quinn upon his return to London.

ENDS

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

That's cuz you're too literal.

I don't think so Simon.

I mean, let's take the death of Pigott.

From what you said earlier in this thread (#33) one would naturally conclude that you believe that the British government ordered Pigott's murder and, from your fabricated claim in your book that two Scotland Yard detectives arrived in Madrid at the same time as Pigott's death, one would have imagined that you believed they were the assassins.

Yet you've told me that you don't believe the British government murdered Pigott and you've denied alleging that those two Scotland Yard detectives were responsible.

So who do you think was responsible for Pigott's death?

I don't think my failure to know what you actually mean on this topic has anything whatsoever to do with me being "too literal" but everything to do with you being too vague.