No announcement yet.

Whitechapel Society Journal October 2010

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Wolf Vanderlinden View Post

    ...You and Palmer say no but what did Andrews himself say about it?

    "Inspector Andrews of the Scotland Yard force, who brought Barnett for trial, left last night for Europe. Before his departure he stated to a reporter that since he had been in Toronto he had obtained some important clues in the Parnell case, facts that he did not dream had existed, but he refused to discuss the mysterious things he had discovered..."

    "Ever since his arrival in the country and his subsequent lengthy stay in Toronto rumors have been current to the effect that he was one of many men in the employ of the British government, arrayed against the representatives of the Irish people in the search for the least evidence that will seemingly injure the Parnellites, but until now Andrews has flatly denied it.
    This morning, however, on the eve of his departure for home the emissary of Scotland Yard admitted that he could not deny the charge,

    “It is generally understood, Mr. Andrews, that your stay in this country has been lengthened by certain work you have been doing in connection with the Parnell commission. Is there any truth in the rumor?”
    “I had rather not answer that question,” he replied.
    “Will you deny that such was your mission or part of your mission here?’
    “Why do you press me? You ought to know that I cannot divulge the secrets of my office.”
    “But wont you say yes or no?’
    “No, I will not deny the statement.”
    “It is said that you have been very unsuccessful in your efforts; that to try and find bona-fide evidence detrimental to the League is lost time in this country. What has been you experience?”
    “I may not have been as successful as could be wished, neither do I think, from my experience, that I have been unsuccessful. As for its being lost time to look for evidence in America, that is all rot. I am pretty certain that a continual correspondence has gone on for years between Parnell, O’Donovan Rossa and others in this country and western America, whom I am not prepared to name, and much of this correspondence will naturally fall in line as evidence against Parnell when the proper time comes to present it.”

    Who to believe, who to believe. You and Palmer or Andrews himself? Not a hard choice, really.

    It's too bad you did not read Roger's part three, because he discusses this and critiques it quite nicely. Hmmm, who to believe, who to believe. We do agree on one thing, it's not a hard choice.


    Last edited by mklhawley; 10-21-2010, 05:04 AM.
    The Ripper's Haunts/JtR Suspect Dr. Francis Tumblety (Sunbury Press)


    • #47
      Actually, this particular line of discussion should be on a different thread. Simon, I will reply to your post on another one if that's o.k., although, a transatlantic manhunt it never was.
      Last edited by mklhawley; 10-21-2010, 05:20 AM.
      The Ripper's Haunts/JtR Suspect Dr. Francis Tumblety (Sunbury Press)


      • #48
        I talked with Joe today about Deputy Minister Smith's letter. He had this to say:

        It is always good when new information is shared amongst us. Stewart has a long history of being generous with his paperwork, and I'm glad he has taken an interest in this Euston topic to the point where he has posted a rarely seen item. I don't recall the front-cover of Deputy Minister Smith's letter ever being displayed before. We all owe our gratitude to Stewart for sharing it.

        Now that we've learned that Smith sent his letter to Barber from Ottawa, corrections can be made to a couple of pieces of literature. On page 265 of my copy of Jack the Ripper: First American Serial Killer, I can now place an asterisk where it says that Smith was visiting London when he wrote to Barber. Along with the asterisk will come a notation about how Smith mailed his letter from Ottawa, not London. And of course, at one point in my Euston Arrest article I too briefly reiterated that Smith was in London when he wrote his letter. So everybody who has a copy of the current issue of the WS Journal could now jot in that correction if they want.

        The article in the Nov 19, 1888 issue of The Sun reported that Tumblety was arrested on Saturday (Nov 17th) on suspicion of being the Whitechapel fiend. The 17th was the same date of the arrest at Euston. Should The Sun's report now be disregarded because Smith sent a letter from Canada and not England?

        Wolf called our attention to a report that claimed the medical man who was arrested at Euston had remained in Birmingham from Nov 12th thru Nov 16th. Has the veracity of that report now been enhanced because Smith sent a letter from Canada and not England?

        Should the information contained in the letter to Barber be categorized as a falsehood because Smith sent a letter from Canada and not England?

        The answer to all three of those questions is no.

        This topic is going to boil down to the accuracy of the report in The Sun; the accuracy of the report that Wolf alerted us to; and the accuracy of the information that Smith had. Smith was aware of the arrest at Euston, and he was aware of the murder suspicions against Tumblety. What caused that Deputy Minister to combine the two news stories is still unknown.

        Natalie Severn did well by reminding us about the questionable reliability of the news reports that came from this era. The objective of many newspapers back then was to play up to their political base. For instance, The Star often stretched the truth in order to ridicule the police, and their reporting of the arrest at Euston was no exception. And there were pro-Irish newspapers in New York that worked hard at degrading the English police as well. We should not be quick to label certain news stories as "evidence" just because a story was compatible to how we think. Personally, I rarely use the word "evidence" when I research this era. I prefer to look at items simply as information, and then I assess their value.

        Hopefully this Casebook thread can confine itself to the contents of the Oct 2010 issue of the WS Journal. And maybe it can return to more friendlier exchanges. I also hope that other articles in the current Oct 2010 issue will be spoken about as well. Adrian has done a pretty good job over the years putting the journal together.


        The Ripper's Haunts/JtR Suspect Dr. Francis Tumblety (Sunbury Press)