Slouch Hats & American Pie

[A.P. Wolf]

While the rest of the world showers RJP with ticker-tape for his stunning and remarkable 'find' on Tumblety, I'm afraid I'm going to rain on his parade.
Reading this article as I slowly tap my blunt pencil against a table I am left wondering if this stunning and remarkable 'find' is not the very same one that I posted up on this site some months ago?
The 'Slouch hat and ale pies' were certainly there.
But hey, what's a few pies between friends?
At the time of the long and protracted discussion concerning Tumblety's detention around the 7th November 1888, I was somewhat surprised at the vitriol and anger my simple quest to establish a simple truth aroused from certain posters, and I speculated at the time that these same posters were probably being driven by vested interest.
Well thank you RJP for proving my point.

Not nice, not smart and certainly not polite, but as I said, what's a few pies amongst friends?

At the time of the original discussion I was keen to point out that claims that Tumblety had ever received police bail were nothing but pure speculation.
I was reliably informed that a suspect would not be detained for more than 24 hours without being given police bail.
This proved to be false, for I was able to produce another Ripper suspect who had been held for over 36 hours without police bail.
Nothing has changed with the production of RJP's article; he merely once again speculates that Tumblety might have been given police bail on the day after his detention on the 7th November 1888, leaving him supposedly free to roam the streets of Whitechapel - being the implication of this bit of speculation - thereby putting Tumblety into a time frame where he could have murdered Mary Kelly.
Never mind that in RJP's own article he quotes Tumblety as saying that he was detained by the police for '2 or 3 days'; which must mean he was held in police cells for that time period and not bailed on the 8th or 9th November.
This places Tumblety in police cells on the night of Mary Kelly's murder; and RJP's attempts to imagine the detail in Tumblety's court report as other than it actually appears is distressing to say the least.

Then we are meant to be shocked and astonished to find out that Tumblety was actually detained in WHITECHAPEL in connection with the WHITECHAPEL MURDERS!!!
Well shock and horror, RJP, where did you think Tumblety was detained? Tunbridge Wells?

Also the fact that Tumblety travelled into Whitechapel - along with many hundreds of other tourists and sensation seekers - does appear to indicate that Tumblety was not in the Whitechapel area at the time of the Whitechapel Murders.
All in all I must say that RJP has made a very good job of convincing me of one thing.
That Tumblety could not have murdered Mary Kelly because the facts uncovered show that he was in police cells at the time.
I thank RJP for clearing that point up for me, and wish him every success with his article.

[Stan Russo]

AP,

To sum up - you do not believe Tumblety was JTR?

Stan

[A.P. Wolf]

To sum up, Stan?
I wouldn't know where to start.
Could it be with the assertion in RJP's article that Tumblety had left New York on the night after his arrival, when in the 'New York World' article he quotes from says:
'As soon as he got off the ship, Dr Tumblety went direct to the house of Mrs McNamara, no 79 East 10th Street, and he has been there ever since.'

And there is no explanation of the telegraphic traffic between Chief Crowley in San Franciso, and Anderson in London, concerning Tumblety on the 19th & 22nd November 1888.

We are also assured that Tumblety had drastically altered his appearance in both London and New York, as if hiding behind a disguise or something; and he may well have done so by late January 1889; but then the selective researchers are ignoring the report in 'Gotham Gossip', New York, dated 4th December 1888 where the reporter who actually meets Tumblety describes him as:
'Big, tall and brawny, his heavy moustache exudes black hair dye'.
So he hadn't had a shave for some time.
Unlike some others around here who might be shaving a bit too close for comfort.
No worries, I got plasters.

[Chris Phillips]

Could it be with the assertion in RJP's article that Tumblety had left New York on the night after his arrival, when in the 'New York World' article he quotes from says:
'As soon as he got off the ship, Dr Tumblety went direct to the house of Mrs McNamara, no 79 East 10th Street, and he has been there ever since.'

The first time I read RJP's article I thought the same thing, but in fact I don't think he does say that Tumblety left New York - only that others were reported to have said so, or to have been told so. Apparently he "gave his pursuers the slip" by remaining in New York under an assumed name.

The one thing that does puzzle me is the reference to "his old rooms in Manhattan". Does that imply he'd kept them on, despite being in hiding under an assumed name for several months?

Chris Phillips

[Stan Russo]

AP,

You like to speak in riddles.

Here's a riddle for you:

Do you think Francis Tumblety was 'Jack the Ripper'?

Here's a hint - there are only two answers to the riddle.

Stan

[A.P. Wolf]

Chris, I think my beef is that RJP then qualifies the thought that Tumblety was not in New York at that time with the following:

'Over the next several weeks Tumblety's exact whereabouts remained unknown. It is sometimes argued that he sat cozily and openly in New York City and could have been easily contacted by Scotland Yard. Such was not the case. Tumblety did not resurface in New York for nearly eight weeks-and only then by the clumsiest of accidents. '

Now this to me does seem to show that RJP had an agenda and programme in mind when he wrote this article.
Firstly to show that Tumblety was released on police bail at the time of Mary Kelly's murder.
Secondly to show that Tumblety was not in New York at the time of Inspector Andrew's visit.
But the facts of the article he quotes show entirely the opposite.
It is really not good enough.

Stan, I don't think anyone gives a monkey what I think about anything. I published the essential elements of this interview with Tumblety in the American press months ago here on site, but all I got was buckets of ripe dung for my troubles.
All I can tell you about Tumblety is that he didn't have a moustache, according to some, and that is very significant, apparently.

[R.J.Palmer]

Just a short note for the moment in regards to AP Wolf’s conspiracy theory above, and in response to Howard Brown’s following question.

...so maybe Roger would like to discuss how,when and where he discovered the Tumblety interview....



If you look at a copy of Ripper Notes Volume 4, No. 2., (October 2002) you’ll find an article by Chris George called “The Diary of Jack the Ripper: Christopher T George on an American curiosity.”

I have, over the years, contributed next to nothing in the Ripper magazines. Indeed, the current Rip is my first article ever, and it may well be my last. Nonetheless, Chris George’s 2002 piece was based on an article I found in the Evening Chronicle (St. Louis) for 15 December, 1888. titled “Ripper’s Diary” --it was about a journal purporting to be a Diary of Jack the Ripper that predates the Maybrick Diary by some 102 years. I sent this Evening Chronicle piece to Chris in Sept 2002, (as well as to Stewart Evans and Keith Skinner) and Chris wrote it up in Ripper Notes. The Evening Chronicle is an exceedingly obscure tabloid (it was, I believe, a national paper also published in New York). It is, as far as I know, only available in the St. Louis Public Library, St. Louis, Mo.,which is precisely where I sat reading it on microfilm. If you look at my current article in The Ripperologist you’ll see that I refer to another story taken from the “Evening Chronicle” on Dec 6th claiming to be an interview with an Innkeeper from the Cornish Arms in New York, who rented Tumblety a room on the night he landed in New York. I defy anyone to find this article anywhere other than in the St. Louis public Library. I found that article at the same time, which was August 2002. I’ve had the interview with Tumblety before that date, sometime around, I believe, Winter 2001. I have a stamped and dated copy of it somewhere in my files. To be honest, noticing now how long I’ve been at this is somewhat staggering to me; I thought it was only 4 years ago, but it appears now that I having been digging at these oyster shells for upwards of 6 years. But I make no sensational claims, and people can make what they want of the article.

The summer of 2002 was a bizarre one for me; I was very much as obsessed as Paul Feldman during his research of the Maybrick Diary, and literally drove cross country digging through hundreds of newspapers, archives, and libraries. Most of it I’ve kept to myself over the years, because, unlike AP Wolf, I’m a dirty rotten bloke. For instance, I had the Brooklyn Eagle articles before the Eagle was digitized, and was very much annoyed when they showed up one day on the internet.... The interview of Tumbley was found for the simple reason that I knew the New York World was the paper that ‘wrote Tumblety up” so it was the obvious place to look for a further coverage. I’’ve actually read damned near every issue of the World for 1889.

I haven’t seen AP’s original posting, but what I think AP actually had is a follow-up piece also mentioning the slouch hat called “Dr Tumblety Writes Poetry” or some similar title, that came out a few days later in the World, and, for some odd reason, was reprinted in a few other papers. Joe Chetcuti refers to it in one of his articles a couple years back.

It is no coincidence whatsoever that I published this interview in the Rip following quickly on the heels of AP Wolf’s postings here. Indeed, I decided to come forward with it solely because of a number of AP’s points, which I found slanted and misleading. But the truth is, I’ve had this article for very long time.

Actually, my philosophy is not all the different to AP’s. History belongs to everyone, and history is a not a matter of “facts” it is a matter of interpretation of those facts. Two men write a biography on Florence Nightingale and one sees her as a prudish crank, and the other sees her as a saint. The man who wins us over is the man whose discourse, insight, and intelligence is most convincing.

As I said in the article, I reckon the meaning of this interview will be debated for years, and I await the comments on it by Whittington-Egan, Sugden, Fido, etc. with interest.

In regards to the Whitechapel Murders, everyone is fully welcome to look at the primary sources and draw their own conclusions. I am, I must say, very much surprised that AP is suddenly taken on a very high-minded tone. I asked him both publicly and privately to reveal one of his sources, and he refused to do it. This from the same fellow who became rather famous on Ryder’s site for claiming that Ripperologists were hiding information from the public. It reminds me of an old girlfriend of mine. “What’s yours is ours, and what’s mine, is mine alone.” But I won’t be too rough on old, AP. What we love about him is his rabble-rousing spirit.

I have little or nothing to say about Tumblety at the moment, and wont’ have for a very long time. But if you go back now read AP’s recent post in light of the Rip article, I’ll think you’ll find that AP has a heck of a lot of explaining to do.

The first point would be to explain why the police issued an arrest warrant for a man that AP claimed was already in custody. The second point would be why AP was aggressively claiming that Tumblety was in custody between Nov 7th and Nov 16th if, as he alleges, he already knew Tumblety’s own words said differently? Who is giving us the smoke and mirrors? Moi? or our friend AP Wolf?


One of the worst things about 'Ripper Studies' is that it is a highly competitive field. Personally, I find this nerve wracking, and not very condusive to proper research, which, by its nature, is a slow process. A mad rush needs to be avoided. If I ever study anything again, I dare say it will be along the lines of some obscure cabinet member in the Van Buren administration.

RP

[Stan Russo]

How,

This is indicative of what we have been discussing over the last two years. It is near impossible to discuss matters on the internet because of the side conversations and the inability to hold people to their claims, in person, versus a far off place where embellishments are protected.

I tried to engage AP in a discussion of whether he believed Tumbelty was JTR but got riddles. I know he doesn't believe in Tumblety as JTR, but getting him to say that would have allowed me to respond with the following question, to which his answer might have provoked another following question, until Tumblety's involvement in the case could be discussed and a movement forward may have been undertaken.

With the venom and ego that is often displayed here, it makes perfect sense why the case never moves forward. Instead of arguing that Tumblety's movements were watched during 1888, as Littlechild asserted, we will squabble over whether he was in jail 1 night, 2 nights, 3 nights or 9 nights. The fact that they knew who he was with on four separate occasions (including the night of the Nichols' murder) becomes a footnote, because the argument over primacy is more important.

In 20 years ... we'll all look back

Stan

[A.P. Wolf]

Well boys, all this soul searching and questioning of an individual's opinion might sell rags, but what I would like to see is solid evidence that Tumblety was extended police bail after November 7th 1888; and that Inspector Andrews went to New York in search of the Whitechapel Murderer.
Not a jot have I seen.
There has been a very serious lack of interest in addressing the real issues here, and instead a lot of hype and tripe.
As I said, I posted the bare bones of Tumblety's interview with the American press months ago, and the earth didn't move then and it still aint moving now.
If this was RJP's 'wait and see', I'm still waiting.
Hopefully Joe has got something a little more credible, if not I'll go back to dividing and divining chickens.

[Chris Phillips]

Chris, I think my beef is that RJP then qualifies the thought that Tumblety was not in New York at that time with the following:

'Over the next several weeks Tumblety's exact whereabouts remained unknown. It is sometimes argued that he sat cozily and openly in New York City and could have been easily contacted by Scotland Yard. Such was not the case. Tumblety did not resurface in New York for nearly eight weeks-and only then by the clumsiest of accidents. '

As I said, I did get hold of the wrong end of the stick myself when I read this the first time, but evidently what RJP is conveying is that:
(1) he did sit in New York, but not openly and
(2) that he was in New York but under the surface.

Chris Phillips

[Dan Norder]

As far as this article interviewing Tumblety goes, Chris Scott suggested that it should "settle debates," but it does no such thing at all. There's absolutely no information in there that is verifiable, and there's every reason in the world for Tumblety to have been giving false information. It's an interesting article, but as far providing reliable evidence of anything related to the case, it's got nothing at all.

Fact: Tumblety was arrested for homosexual acts.

Fact: He fled to Europe and then America on bail (which was not an uncommon way out of homosexuality charges at the time, and was a semi-encouraged process).

Fact: Shortly thereafter, U.S. papers claimed that Tumblety had been arrested in connection with the Ripper crimes.

Fact: The only document by anyone related to the London police that links him to the crimes was written years later, by someone not known to have worked on the case and got basic facts about the man completely wrong.

Let's look at this article as people using some basic logic instead of someone trying to sell a suspect. Tumblety wasn't about to say, "Oh, that was a misunderstanding of the press, I was really arrested for having sex with boys" (or even "I can't believe you suckers fell for that rumor I leaked about being arrested for the Ripper case instead of homosexual acts"). At the time of the interview the press in America had already widely spread the alleged Ripper connection. So it makes sense that he'd just say that they arrested him on the Ripper thing but that it was for a bad reason. And if it's one that might play up the U.S. versus England rivalry by trying to blame it on an American hat and quoting Byrnes' statements, all the better.

While certainly making entertaining reading, the interview is a far cry from actual reliable evidence. It's amusing how RJ goes through and suggests that Tumblety was lying on everything that would make him a bad suspect but then just blindly accepts everything else that was said as if it were written in stone. This report does not prove he was in Whitechapel, or that he had a smaller mustache at the time, or he dressed down while in London, or that he was released in only a couple of days or, most importantly, that he was actually arrested in connection with the crimes. It's some story a known con man told a long time after the fact who had every reason to lie.

Frankly, if this same info came from Karen Trenouth or Patricia Corrnwell, or featured a suspect that isn't as popular, nobody would have paid much attention to it. For example, while falsely RJ claims this was the first interview with a Ripper suspect giving his side of the story, we already have seen interviews with Sadler, La Bruckman and others... which nobody paid much attention to (and RJ forgot completely) because, for whatever reason, those suspects aren't treated as seriously. If you ask me Sadler is a far better candidate, because we at least know he wsa actually arrested in connection with the crimes, and that a witness from the earlier murders was brought in to try to identify him, and so forth and so on.

I would have hoped people in this field would realize by now that these kinds of reports aren't reliable. Sadler, La Bruckman, Pizer, Tumblety, etc. all tried to blame the police for misconduct and gave info of questionable value. Out of all of them Tumblety is the one with most well documented history of making up stories for attention and spinning lies to make himself look better. Why suddenly people want to take his claims as if they were proof of anything is a mystery.

[Chris Phillips]

This report does not prove he was in Whitechapel, or that he had a smaller mustache at the time, or he dressed down while in London, or that he was released in only a couple of days or, most importantly, that he was actually arrested in connection with the crimes. It's some story a known con man told a long time after the fact who had every reason to lie.

But - even if we accepted that Tumblety eagerly embraced a false story about being suspected of serial murder, because he was embarrassed about the indecency charges - what reason would he have to underestimate the time he spent in custody, or to conceal the fact that he had been in custody at the time of Kelly's murder, if that had been the case?

What reason would he have had to invent anything that made the police action appear more reasonable - that he had been in Whitechapel, and that he had been inconspicuously dressed - when he was lambasting them for their inefficiency? It would have made a better story if he'd claimed to be arrested while walking down Newport Pagnell High Street on stilts dressed as a clown!

By all means treat Tumblety as a partial witness, but it makes no sense to suppose he would invent things against his own interest.

Chris Phillips

[Dan Norder]

I don't think he would purposefully say anything he thought would be against his interest, no, but then I don't think the arguments that certain aspects of his story must be true because of that hold much weight.

For instance the length of time in jail... Who's to say what he thought would be in his best interest to reveal? You can't judge his statements upon what someone more than one hundred years later who has gone over the details of the case that are known backwards and forwards.

That he had been in Whitechapel, for instance... Well, if the story was that he was arrested for the Ripper thing falsely and to hide the homosexual charges, what story would he hypothetically invent up that wouldn't involve being in Whitechapel? As he himself points out, thousands of people were in Whitechapel looking at the crime scenes, that (if it were true, which we don't know) doesn't make him more of a suspect than thousands of people, so he could invent that part up without thinking it incriminated himself in any way.

And the inconspicuously dressed... that in no way makes the alleged police arrest more reasonable compared to an average man off the street, and in fact the whole argument was his type of hat, so saying he was dressed in military clothes or finery wouldn't make his story work at all.

Hell, if we're talking about why would people say things that would make them look like more of a suspect, how about Arbie La Bruckman's claims? He invented up a bizarre claim that he had been put on trial for being Jack the Ripper, which if true certainly would be more of an indication that he should be taken seriously than that he should be ignored. We know that no such trial never happened. So why did he say it? Who knows. Maybe he thought a story that he had been linked but cleared would help, maybe he just wasn't thinking things through very well. Same could go for Tumblety, not that I think the things he claims are all that incriminating to begin with.

[Robert Linford]

I would have thought that Tumblety could have hurled a devastating thunderbolt at Scotland Yard, simply by saying, "These clowns suspect me of being Jack the Ripper. But I was actually in prison when the latest victim was butchered. Now, I know prison food is bad, but not so bad that I could actually squeeze out through the bars. No wonder these idiots haven't caught the Ripper."

If the indecency charges ever came up, he could simply have said that the British police (idiots to a man) having failed to gather any evidence against him for the murders, were trying to pin indecency charges on him instead.

Robert

[Natalie Severn]

I have read RJ"s article .Unsurprisingly nobody seems able to bear the thought that Tumblety may have been Jack the Ripper .But I think he actually could have been.
He could have been working for Sir Edward Jenkinson as one of his part time "informers"[alongside the "barmaids,bigamists and pavement artists"] and as things developed badly for Jenkinson in 1886 and as he worked himself up into a homicidal rage over Monro when he got sacked because of him ,he is recorded as having begun to think of getting into bed with Parnell and the Home Rule girls and boys ,giving himself false names and donning strange looking disguises.... like startlingly black beards[where have we heard that before I wonder] and a wig ,maybe he got Tumblety to do another "little job" for him-----like leaving poor Polly Nicholls on his doorstep with her throat cut and her insides ripped the very day Robert Anderson took office !
It was a dirty business all round.He wasnt the only one playing dirty by any means.In fact they all dealt in death and dirty deeds ,one way or another.
Natalie

[Stan Russo]

Apparently nobody, to my knowledge, has thought of this.

Even if Tumbelty was released on bail prior to the night of November 8th, since there was some sort of connection between him and the JTR murders, at least in the minds of Scotland Yard, presumably the Special Branch, he would have had a tail on him upon being released. How does one commit the Miller's Court murder while under surveillance?

For anyone who doesn't know my thoughts on Tumblety, I believe he was not JTR, but that is not where the conversation ends. There is some connection between Tumblety and the murders. It is only a matter of figuring out the nature.

Stan

[A.P. Wolf]

Well Stan, the picture that RJP paints for us is that Tumblety was detained on the 7th November 1888, released on police bail on the 8th - which was most often done on a person's word or very small bond, in other words not a lot of cash - murdered Mary Kelly on the 9th November; and then presented himself to the police, voluntarily on the 14th November and said 'here I am boys, lock me up', shortly went into court where he was given court bail on a surety of $1,000... and then did a runner?
Get outta here!
If Tumblety had been given police bail after the 7th November that is when he would have done his runner... not waited to be charged in court with sodomy.
The only conclusion that can be reached given those circumstances is that Tumblety was in police custody until given court bail and then he fled... obviously.

[Stan Russo]

AP,

There is some interpretation regarding Tumblety's arrest or arrests in November of 1888. It is not as if we have the absolute facts to go by.

That being said, no one wants to address the obvious - Tumblety was in some way, according to Scotland Yard (Special Branch) connected to the murders. IMHO, that is one of the keys to solving this case and has been a part of my theory for the better part of 5 years now. Not one shred of discovered evidence has challenged my opinions regarding Tumblety's involvement.

Stan

[A.P. Wolf]

Stan, is that 'according to Scotland Yard - Special Branch' a reference to the ramblings of a retired officer called Littlechild many years after the events?
Personally I see no valid 'interpretation' of the events surrounding the arrest and detention of Tumblety whilst in London, merely and only the court report, and of course the contemporary press accounts.
You have to remember that if you peel back the years to when the Littlechild ramblings were discovered and subsequent research showed that Tumblety was in police custody on the 9th November 1888, the folks involved then claimed that Mary Kelly was not a victim of the Whitechapel Murderer.
Just so the cloth fitted you must understand.
I have factual evidence from the 1990's which shows this.
Then someone came up with the brilliant idea of 'police bail'.
And then Mary Kelly was suddenly a victim again.
Neat, ain't it.
I have never said that Tumblety is not a reasonable suspect, but what I have said, and I will reinforce again, is that I will not stand idly by whilst folks with almighty vested interest attempt to dupe the public domain with their unreasonable, unfounded and totally irresponsible claims.
There is no evidence that Tumblety was ever bailed by the police.
That's it.

[Stan Russo]

AP,

For the record, Littlechild was a Chief Inspector of the 'Special Branch'. However, he was the Chief Inspector in the same way, I believe, that Donald Swanson was a Chief Inspector. They were both paper pushers, yet that in and of itself is critical.

Taking Littlechild's remeberings out of the equation, there is still ample evidence that Scotland Yard - Section D - Special Branch believed that Tumblety was in some way connected to the murders.

Samples of Tumblety's handwriting was retrieved from San Francisco.

Tumblety was followed after he was bailed - this is logically implied since they knew he was on Le Bretagne (spelling), along with an undetermined Special Branch officer (presumably John Sweeney)

Tumblety was being trailed in NY by the NYPD, working in connection with Scotland Yard. The fact that he wasn't immediately arrested off the boat should tell you that the London Police believed he was involved, but not as a murderer, but involved somehow. This also explains the Pardon offered on November 10th, although there is another great reason for the pardon offer.

It is hard to converse with you about the case AP. When you are not shouting about primacy you are offering riddles. I think you fail to notice the nuances of the case, such as despite Littlechild's letter to Sims, the Special Branch knew of Tumblety, knew he was not JTR and thought he was connected to the murders in some way, enough to have him tailed all the way across the Atlantic Ocean.

No matter how much you like or dislike Tumblety as a suspect, these salient facts are being ignored.

Once they are addressed, maybe the next step can be taken. That would be productive though. I'm not sure if this field can afford to have that.

Stan

[A.P. Wolf]

Stan
if you look correctly at the telegraphic exchange between Scotland Yard and the San Francisco police force in late 1888 you will soon see that it was the SFPD that iniated the exchange, and not Scotland Yard.
I have already posted the original telegraph but can do so again if you like, and the subsequent contacts between the two police forces, as reported in the press.
If the Special Branch followed Tumblety to France and then to New York, would you please ask RJP and Joe why they think it was also required to send Inspector Andrews all the way to New York to... do what?
Like you I'm not prepared to shut out Tumblety as a connective tissue in the wild wild world of 1888 - and here I think of the address of his lodgings in New York when he first arrived and then that makes me think of Moroney, his flight from Le Havre, and his address in New York?
And that is a world first by the way.

[Stan Russo]

AP,

The communications between SF and London were over the issue of Tumblety's handwriting. This further links Tumblety as a suspect, with the handwriting more than likely being the Lusk and Openshaw letters.

With regards to RJP and Joe, whom I really don't know, I do not know there agenda or desire to state that Andrews went to America in search of Tumblety.

What I do know is that Andrews was one of three Special Branch officers seconded to Whitechapel on the morning of the Nichols murder, along with Moore and Abberline. We all know that Abberline was working the ground case and Moore was probably working the papers, although his direct duties have never been documented. Andrews, however, is in Whitechapel and then off to Canada. As Moore and Abberline were consistently engaged on the case, it is logical to assume that Andrews was also. Why was he in Canada?

The answer may be because he was gathering information on Tuimblety and was the logical choice to send to NY, after Tumblety.

This only solidifies the idea that Tumblety was not JTR, but in the minds of Scotland Yard, now headed up by James Monro, the head of the Special Branch, was connected in some way. Monro's memoirs bear this out.

Stan

[A.P. Wolf]

'What I do know is that Andrews was one of three Special Branch officers seconded to Whitechapel on the morning of the Nichols murder, along with Moore and Abberline.'

Show me where you got that from, Stan, and I'll eat my hat.
Slouch hat that is.

[R.J.Palmer]

Back in December, the author Paul Begg made one of his all-too-rare appearances in the public arena. Due to all the ill-mannered tripe on the public forums, perhaps it is not too surprising that his time is limitted. Begg stated:

“It might be worth observing that others have complained about Norder’s apparent habit of distorting what is actually written into some meaning of his own and then criticising them for it, so perhaps he could drop the usual nebulous accusations...”

Alas, some things never change. Norder’s “nebulous accusations” have made him a tiresome figure to a great many, but he shows no signs of slowing.

Norder writes:

“While falsely RJ claims this was the first interview with a Ripper suspect giving his side of the story, we already have seen interviews with Sadler, La Bruckman and others... “

What I actually wrote was:


“beyond a few stray sentences by the exonerated John Pizer, it is the only known account of a major police suspect giving his version of why he was investigated for being “Jack the Ripper.’ Ripperologist 79, p. 5


Note the word “Major police Suspect.” Note also that I specificaly wrote “investigated for being “Jack the Ripper” as opposed to “a whitechapel suspect”

That Mr. Wescott (who made a similar comment) and Mr. Norder cannot appreciate the distinction between ‘the Jack the Ripper murders’ and the “whitechapel murders’ does not mean that the rest of us should not appreciate it. There are 11 murders in the MEPO Whitechapel files, but it is clear from Scotland Yard commentary that only a small number of these were attributed to “Jack the Ripper” by the intelligentsia. Sadler is not a “major suspect” for being “Jack the Ripper”, for the simple fact that the Met quickly learned that he was not in the country during the original 1888 crimes. Phil Sugden recovered the appropiate passenger lists that proved that point. It is clear from the Macnaghten memo that MM considered Sadler a suspect in the McKenzie murder, but not the “Ripper” murders. Perhaps Wescott and Norder would be so kind as to produced Sadler’s comments pertaining to the suspicoins against him in the MacKenzie murder?? They would make for most interesting reading.

I think most intelligent people would realize that a ‘major police suspect’ would be a suspect actually named by a member of the Metropolitan or City of London police force: druiitt, ostrog, tumblety, kosminksi---let’s include Klosowski, (later named by Abberline) or the contempoary exonerated suspects menitoned in the police files: Pizer, Isenschmid, Piggott, John Sanders. A rather exclusive list. I would even give my old friend AP Wolf the tip of the hat, and include Cutbush, as it is clear that Chisholm & Co. did investigate his 1888 activities after the 1891 “jobbings.” These men gave no interviews. And when in the hell did La Bruckman become a “major police suspect”??? If DN is going to make that argument, than DN better not only produce his documentation for that claim, he also better go and give Wolf Vanderlinden a ring, as Vanderlinden is going to need to compose a rather longish apology to Michael Conlon for some of the pompous statements levelled at Conlon several years ago on the old Casebook site, when MC dared suggest La Bruckman was a police suspect in the Whitechapel murders.

If Wescott and Norder have uncovered Druitt giving his ‘version’ of why he was suspected of being Jack the Ripper, then by all means I would encourage them to publish it in the next edition of Ripper Notes. At which time I truly hope some bizarre internet crank wouldn’t pop up and idiotically compare such important source material to the work of Patty Cornwell and Karen Trenchmouth..whoever the heck she is.

More hard hitting analysis by Norder:

Fact: He fled to Europe and then America on bail (which was not an uncommon way out of homosexuality charges at the time, and was a semi-encouraged process).

Yes he fled to Bologne. this is what Littlechild said, and who ever said differently?? Nonetheless, having petty criminals and murder suspects flee to Bologne was NOT encouraged by Scotland Yard!! Where on earth do these weird ideas come from? That Oscar Wilde was encouraged by his FRIENDS to flee, or an exceedingly tiny number of highly-connected Lords may have been given the opportunity to ‘fly the coop’ is hardly evidence that it was Scotland Yard policy! Does Dan Norder honestly expect any intelligent member of the public to believe that Littlechild was stating that it was a GOOD THING that Tumblety jumped bail?” Next I suppose we’ll hear that it was also semi-encouraged for the Yard’s man in Bologne to tell his children that he had worked the Ripper case, and that it was semi-encouraged for Chief Inspectors to later comment in private that such absonders were ‘among the suspects’ in the Whitechapel Murder investigation...! These silly innuendos are nothing more than the standard low-level post-modernism we’ve come to expect from DN: the tale wags the dog. .

Fact: Shortly thereafter, U.S. papers claimed that Tumblety had been arrested in connection with the Ripper crimes.

It’s illustrative to note how Dan Norder (and AP Wolf) constantly tweak the chronology to suit their own purposes.

I hate to be forced to say this, but this is sheer dishonesty on Norder’s part, because it has been pointed out to him on numerous occasions, so he must be aware of it, yet he keeps repeating it.

The intial report linking Tumblety to the Whitechapel Murders dates to Nov. 17th, a time BEFORE he boarded La Bretagne; further, judging by the letter Grey Hunter alluded to earlier, it dates to a time when he was still in England and attempting to repay his bondsmen. As early as Oct 7th the police had contacted an “Herb Doctor from New York” in Whitechapel. Too coincidental to be ignored.

So Norder’s claim that these reports surfaced ‘shortly therafter’ is obviously wrong. Significantly, the initial report gave Tumblety’s name as “Kumblety” by which it is obvious that the London corresondent didn’t even know who the hell he was. This was not a missrpint because the reporter specifically states with surprise that this was the man’s name. The article heavily implies that he was suspected in the murders, but was held instead for crimes falling under the “Modern Bablyon” exposures, ie., gross indecency. Let me repeat: This report came from a Man who did not know who Tumblety was. How many times must that be stressed before DN abandons his tired and untenable post-modernism? There is no serious historian of the case, who would believe that the word of a Chief Inspector in the Yard that a man was ‘among the supects’ would mean anything other than that he was “among the suspects.”

[THE NEW YORK WORLD CABLE SERVICE; COPYRIGHTED, 1888 - SPECIAL TO THE CHRONICLE] (Published Nov. 18th)



LONDON, November 17.--
“.... Another arrest was a man who gave the name of Dr. Kumblety of New York. The police could not hold him on suspicion of the Whitechapel crimes, but he will be committed for trial at the Central Criminal Court under the special law passed soon after the Modern Babylon exposures. The police say this is the man's right name, as proved by letters in his possession; that he is from New York, and that he has been in the habit of crossing the ocean twice a year for several years.”


Note the date: Nov 17th, published on the 18th. Tumblety’s letter seeking funds is dated the 20th. La Bretagne left Le Havre on the 24th. Norder’s chonology is quite simply, wrong....and he knows it.

The FACT is that the accuracy of this initial report has been entirely verified by the subsequent documentation unearthed by Evans, Gainey, and Aliffe, etc: the ship passenger lists, the court calendar in tabular form, the Littechild Letter, contemporary news reports from obviously independent sources, etc. etc. People seem to forget that fact. These events happened, and no matter how hard Norder --who, significantly, came to Ripper Studes on the heels of his interest in “Folkolore and “urban folkore”- tries to muddle them with strange and untenable theories, they aren’t going away. It is further illlustrative to note that Norder does the same thing to Druitt, Kosminski, etc. In DN’s World, everyone is always someone else. Anderson’s witness is really Violena. Andersons’s Jewish supect is really Pizer. Druitt is really an unidentified drowned doctor; Littlechild’s Tumblety is Druitt. etc. etc. ad infinitum. As I see it, such vacuous and I dare say promiscuous flipping out of the ‘garbled memory card’ is akin to an intellectual disease. I do not consider it wisdom, and I do not consider it a way forward to correctly interpreting the behind-the-scenes investigations at Scotland Yard.

Next up, AP Wolf:

"You have to remember that if you peel back the years to when the Littlechild ramblings were discovered and subsequent research showed that Tumblety was in police custody on the 9th November 1888, the folks involved then claimed that Mary Kelly was not a victim of the Whitechapel Murderer."


The argument that Mary Kelly was not a Ripper victim never played a part in the Tumblety theory, even though this claim is often repeated by Caroline Morris,etc., (and now AP). The theory was mentioned in passing in an appendix to the 2nd edition of Evans and Gainey’s book, and was based on the work of Alex Chisholm, who suggest it in an article called “Done to Death.” Chisholm’s theory was that perhaps Barnett killed Kelly and dressed it up to look like a Ripper crime. The theory never helped, nor hurt, Evans and Gainey’s case, as their positon was (and still is) that the historical record gives no evidence whatsover that Tumbelty was in police custody on the 9th. I note with interst that AP still has no credible explanation of why the police issued an arrest warrant for a man that he has been aggressively claiming was already in custody! There is no record of a warrant for Tumblety’s arrest dating prior to Nov 7th. This means the coppers picked him and hauled him to the station, and could not have held him indefinitely. What AP wants us to believe is that the seven day span between the initial arrest and the time the warrant was issued is coinicedental, when, in fact, this was the standard span that was given to a suspect before he was required to return to the statoin for formal booking. The fact that the warrant was issued that very day obviously implies that Tumblety failed to appear.

[A.P. Wolf]

Thanks for your considered reply, RJP, much appreciated.
I think the view on Mary Kelly as a victim back in the 1990's was a little stronger than you portray; and it does appear to be linked to efforts to provide Tumblety with better legs to stand on; as I think this statement from Steward Evans provides:

'
8. You have made some ground-shaking arguments in your book concerning the victim status of both Elizabeth Stride and, perhaps most shocking, Mary Kelly. What is your stance on both of these women having been murdered by Jack the Ripper, and why?
I would hardly call my arguments in disposing of Stride as a 'Ripper' suspect 'ground-shaking' and I am certainly not the first to think this. Indeed, there is contemporary evidence to suggest that the City Police did not think Stride was a 'Ripper' victim. With regard to Kelly, I merely state the possibility, also stated by others, including Simon Wood and Alex Chisholm, that she may not have been a 'Ripper' victim. This, of course, does not suit those who seek to raise both the status and tally of the 'Ripper.' But look carefully at the Kelly murder, there was much different about it. I accept the old argument that it was the first of the series committed indoors which may account for the differences and this is a valid argument. Equally Alex Chisholm makes a valid argument against her being a victim. The 'Ripper' may have murdered her, or he may not have, we simply do not know for sure, and nothing should be taken as fact unless proved so. Accepting 'established canons' as fact may be a great stumbling block in the search for the truth. '

Amen to that last statement.

[Dan Norder]

Hi RJ,

Yeah, you and Begg (and others) go to great lengths to try to twist people's words. The Casebook thread on which Begg stated the quote you posted above was the one where it was agreed upon by the vast majority of the people posting there that, in fact, he was the one being deceptive about what he had said and that I was right. But of course you don't care, as long as you can try to affiliate yourself with someone else's personal attack and try to get some mileage out of it. That's a pretty good example of how you typically conduct yourself.

As another example, you right away claim that you meant "serious police suspect" and "Ripper" case and that the interview with Sadler thus doesn't count so you really weren't wrong... Except that Sadler was a very serious police suspect and he was also investigated in connection with the canonical five Ripper murders (though even if he had not been, you don't know for sure which victims were the Ripper's and which were not, so you'd still be wrong in your claim) because they brought in a witness from the earlier case (almost certainly Lawende) to ty to interview him. Your attempt to rationalize that mistake away by trying to focus on the individual words so directly that the overall meaning of the sentence is distorted to mean whatever you want it to mean to try to excuse yourself just won't work.

Next up, people with wealth who were arrested for being involved in homosexual crimes most certainly were encouraged to flee the country. Certainly if you'd studied the topic you would have known this. Now I certainly did not say that the police did, but society certainly did. And for you to then try to say I was claiming Littlechild himself encouraged it is just more of your standard straw man attacks against something nobody said... and one clearing trying to sneak your assumption that Littlechild even knew anything at all about Tumblety at the time into the conversation as if it were a fact, when there is no evidence of it at all. Littlechild spoke years later and we have no clue where he got the idea that Tumblety made a good suspect. He could have gotten it from the US news reports.

As far as arguing over the exact date of when the press first tried to link Tumblety to the Ripper murders, you are purposefully trying to get the conversation off the point, which is that there's no proof that the claim that he was arrested in connection with the Ripper case is accurate. Even if we were to generously assume that everything you've said about the dates were true, my point that the information could be a incorrect still holds. We know he was arrested, but he was arrested on charges related to homosexual acts. (And it's also clear from Littlechild's statements that it was this homosexuality that was the major influence in Littlechild thinking he may have been the Ripper... so while you try to attack modern profilers you just end up supporting the Victorian "profiling" that people from different countries and different sexual orientation are likely killers... you are more than a century behind the times, here.) It doesn't take much for someone to only get half the story right and for it to take on a life of its own.

And, honestly, if you think that it's a bad thing that I have a background in folklore and urban legends and know how to tell when stories aren't necessarily true, then you have a pretty peculiar idea of how different sources should be interpreted. To the contrary, it's the people who assume that any newspaper report they pick up must be factual (or at least the ones that can be twisted to support their own theories anyway) that cause problems.

And, as an aside, yes, Anderson's alleged witness who "unhesitatingly identified" could be a misremembered reference to Violenia and Pizer... Donald Rumbelow himself suggested the idea, and since he and Stewart Evans are arguing that that episode was all a mix up of confused facts and bad memory (with a heavy dose of wishful thinking), the Violenia and Pizer incident certainly could be an influence on the story they finally ended up with. Violenia did unhesitatingly identify a Jewish suspect, and Pizer was being protected by his family, just like in Anderson's little story. And, of course, these are all offered up as one of many possible theories, as I tend to think there are a lot of ways of interpreting the evidence instead of what those people with very obvious suspects to push want people to buy. It's bizarre that you simply cannot stay on topic and insist upon trying to attack me about some other topic completely, and then pick something that only shows you can't find anything substantive to complain about.

And your claim to not wanting to be held back by canon goes completely out the window when it's clear you are only doing so to give yourself some wiggle room to call Tumblety the Ripper even if he was still in jail when Mary Kelly was murdered. If you really cared about questioning assumptions and not blindly following commonly accepted wisdom you would not tried to claim (falsely) that Sadler was only thought of as being the killer of Coles and maybe McKenzie and thus not a serious Ripper suspect. You just pick and choose whatever agument you think might work and don't even consider that they contradict each other. Between that and your consistent strategy of character assasination instead of trying informed and rational debate, any thread you participate in gets very tedious very quickly.

[Stan Russo]

AP,

Hope that hat tastes good - the information about the three officers seconded to Whitechapel on the morning of the Nichols murder that I posted comes directly from the 1938 book by Walter Dew.

I'm actually more surprised that an author such as yourself does not know a critical and basic point of the case such as this.

Stan

[A.P. Wolf]

I don't do 'Dew', Stan.
He's about as reliable as a starter motor on a 1968 Ford Anglia.
If that's your 'sauce' then I suggest you put it on a burger.

[Stan Russo]

AP,

First off, the fact that you "don't do Dew" is not the point. You challenged me on a referenced statement, I produced, now get eating with the hat.

On a serious note, it is also irrelevant that you personally don't rely on Walter Dew. You should in the least know about the statement. Your hat challenge shows you didn't. I am baffled how anyone can write a book and not know these basic facts.

On the statement - I don't understand why you would perceive it as unreliable. As far as I've seen, the statement is fine. Abberline, Moore and Andrews were all Special Branch - then Abberline and Moore are in Whitechapel working on the JTR case, with Andrews in a place where a Special Branch watched person formerly lived. Later on, Andrews is sent to where that same suspect escaped police surveillance. Also, what do you think Abberline was doing there? Just independantly investigating on his own?

Please show me how Dew's statement is erroneous at all and I'll eat a hat.

Author to author - the riddles and rhymes, man ... think it's time to retire them and speak like one of those human people. You might have better conversations, which could end up being productive. Just some advice.

Stan

[A.P. Wolf]

Stan
I read Dew's book a long time ago in the British Library. At the time I did not think it relevant to the Whitechapel Murders; and I still don't.
I don't believe Inspector Andrews was ever involved in the Whitechapel Murder case.
If you like I can present you with details of the cases he was working on in 1888, all fraud cases.
As was the case that took him to Canada and America in 1888.
Not Tumblety, not the Fenians, but plain and simple fraud.

[Stan Russo]

AP,

So you are stating that Dew was incorrect about Andrews alone? That would make him correct about Abberline and Moore still and as such a reliable source.

I would love to see this information on Andrews' work during the Autumn on 1888. It seems to be a weird error on Dew's part, if an error at all, to state that Andrews was one of the three. He may have known Abberline but I'm not sure how he would have known Andrews, given Dew's limited status in the police force at the time,in comparison to Walter Andrews.

Remember, there are some who still don't understand the role of Henry Moore, yet it is pretty much consensus that he worked on the case. The fact that he does not appear all too often should give the impression that he was working behind the scenes, more than likely with the newspapers, as every instance connecting Moore to the case revolves around the newspapers.

So, if Abberline worked the ground, as no one should argue, and Moore worked the papers, which is obvious from the references to him, I am not sure why it would be impossible for Andrews to be collecting information on Tumblety in Canada, and then in America?

Just because the Special Branch was investigating Tumblety as early as the Nichols murder, knowing about the four acts of gross indecency, specifically the one on the night of the Nichols murder, does not mean that Tumblety was JTR.

I think you feel that one must lead to the other. That does not need to be the case.

Stan

[A.P. Wolf]

No Stan, I think I feel that as there is not single reference or document that names Andrews in connection with the Whitechapel Murders then it is is very likely that Andrews was not involved in the investigation at all.
Unlike you I'm quite prepared to accept documented evidence of an officer's role in this case rather than hearsay or fictionalised accounts written many years after the events we discuss.
You, Stan, seem prepared to accept anything that matches your preconceived notion about this case.
Well that's a nice and easy route to travel, I must agree, and perhaps as I get older I should just shoot pigeons and claim ducks and say what the hell I was there and shot something.

[Stan Russo]

Andrews was named, just not by someone you place any weight in, so that's your notions of the case interfering with what has been generally accepted as established fact.

Andrews not named in any official document makes perfect sense, if you have any insight at all. You should be able to understand that he did work for the anti-terrorist organization and that they had no official role in the JTR investigation. However, Monro, Anderson, Abberline and Moore, all Special Branch, worked the case. Nothing was ever mentioned in any files about Tumblety and JTR, which is why it took so long to find him as a suspect. Why does it come as a shock to think Andrews was never officialy documented as working the case? Henry Moore was never documented as working the case, but he was there, working the case. The same could be said about James Monro.

This isn't about what I believe or what you think I need to believe for my theories to work. Andrews' working the case in some Special Branch capacity really does nothing for me, but I refuse to disregard it because you personally place a tag of unreliability upon Walter Dew, despite the fact that he was right about Abberline and Moore.

This is about you not being able to see past the stuff on paper. If Henry Moore never sent Sgt. White to re-interview Matthew Packer, you'd be arguing that he had no part in the JTR investigation. Nothing ever documents that he was technically working the case. And you'd be dead wrong.

As for your riddles and rhymes, they are getting tiresome and I am wasting my time arguing with someone who can't take a piece of information and make an educated deductive analysis about it.

I wish you luck in looking for the "pit" you need the murderer to have been in, because it's not about the case for you, as I can see - it is really just about you.

Stan

[Caroline Morris]

The argument that Mary Kelly was not a Ripper victim never played a part in the Tumblety theory, even though this claim is often repeated by Caroline Morris,etc., (and now AP). The theory was mentioned in passing in an appendix to the 2nd edition of Evans and Gainey’s book, and was based on the work of Alex Chisholm, who suggest it in an article called “Done to Death.” Chisholm’s theory was that perhaps Barnett killed Kelly and dressed it up to look like a Ripper crime. The theory never helped, nor hurt, Evans and Gainey’s case, as their positon was (and still is) that the historical record gives no evidence whatsover that Tumbelty was in police custody on the 9th.

Hi RJ,

I'm happy if the impression I had at one time was false, and that no Tumblety theorist ever argued on a message board that it didn't really matter whether he was in or out - or followed about - when MJK was killed because she may not have been a ripper victim anyway.

It is reassuring to know that if a November 9 alibi, of any kind, is ever established for this intriguing character, removing the 'get out of jail free' card from his pack, the MJK joker will not be played. :cheer2:

Love,

Caz
X

[Natalie Severn]

AP would appear to me to be nearer the mark over Inspector Andrews.He arrived in Toronto on Dec 10th 1888with Roland Gideon Israel Barnet,who was charged with having contributed to the failure of the Central Bank of Toronto.
On 20 December he went to Montreal,where he had an interview with Chief Inspector Hughes.At this point he was collared by newsmen and questioned about the Whitechapel murders.On 22 Dec 1888 the St Louis Republican reported that it had been announced at police headquarters on the 21 Dec.1888 that Inspector Andews and two other Scotland Yard men were to investigate the Ripper in Canada.
HOwever from the above report it cannot be proven that they were to investigate the Ripper in Canada-but it can be proven that Andrews had been sent to Toronto to help with a case of Fraud.
Andrews then went to New York and several newspapers did indeed pick up the Canadian Newsmen"s theme,ie that he was there in connection with the Whitechapel murders investigation.
However he is not mentioned in any surviving police or Home Office reports on the case.
On the 23rd December, The NEW YORK HERALD,no friend of Charles Stewart PARNELL,-and it may be worth noting here , a newspaper that had strong links with Fred MILLEN,a Clan Na Gael spy and a British Embassy informer as well as being one of their own newspaper correspondents,claimed it had received a telegraph from Montreal on 22nd Dec 88[ie the previous day when the St Louis Republican was stating stuff about the Ripper].The telegraph it stated was that Andrews was there specifically to search for information to injure the PARNELLITES.
Andrews had apparently announced that the British govt had a highly effective network of informers so although he at first denied the charge that he was there to injure the Parnellites,he did admit to the existence of a widespread spy network.The Nationalists apparently countered this with the comment that they too had been watching Andrews ever since he had left Halifax.
So Andrews visit to America could have been more concerned with the Parnellites than with any Ripper Investigations--------but then so could Tumblety"s------
In his second book published in 1889," Dr Francis Tumblety,Sketch of the Gifted etcetc " he stated "........Now let me say a word about the attacks which certain American Newspapers recently made on me,attacks that were as unfounded as the onslaught made on the great Irish Leader[ie Parnell] .....like Parnell, I have emerged from the battle totally unscathed, with my social and professional standing unimpaired".

Natalie

ps That Autumn, Scotland Yard had at least one other detective in America apparently on "anti Fenian" business...Ins.HL Reeves----it was reported in the St Louis Daily Globe and Democrat on 23rd November 1888
and I saw it myself at the Collindale Newspaper Archives.

Sources i] The Facts by Paul Begg ii]Fenian Fire.

[Stan Russo]

Natalie,

Can you please provide the timeline of Andrews' activities between the morning of September 1st and December 10th, when he was in Toronto?

I'm not sure how you could, seeing as Andrews was Special Branch and obviously involved in anti-Fenian investigating, therefore there would be no documentation of his activities.

The problem then becomes, how do you account for Dew's comment that he was seconded to Whitechapel along with Abberline and Moore, which we all know that those two Special Branch officers were? We know how AP accounts for it, despite the internal fallacy within his statement (that Dew got 2 right but 1 wrong, so he is unreliable - as some kind of car I believe).

Maybe we are actually getting somewhere here. That's a big kudos to you Natalie, but it's all in understanding. The problem is that most people see the anti-Fenian activities of the Special Branch and the JTR investigation as two separate entities, despite the wealth of information to the contrary. Why they see it that way is their own deal, and a deal that I have spoken and written on numerous times.

Until someone can show that Andrews wasn't involved in the JTR investigation, coupled together with an anti-Fenian investigation, then Dew's statement should be taken as accurate since it is definitively 2/3rds accurate and has never been proven as inaccurate, even 1/3rd inaccurate.

Therefore, I am not sure how AP has the better grasp on Andrews, considering that he is consciously ignoring information that he cannot show as erroneous from a police source that has proved himself reliable, even within the very statement that AP challenges.

The progress I am referring to is that the JTR investigation was coupled with the anti-Fenian investigations, even if not by every ranking officer. I am sure that Warren did not know about it and more than likely both Swanson and Littlechild didn't. Littlechild remembered just enough to link Tumblety to JTR, even though it appears that Littlechild played no role in the JTR investigation. There are a number of people who played a role in both arenas, including Monro, Anderson, Abberline and Moore, as well as Andrews in some covert capacity.

To continue along the path of belief that these two investigative entities were separate is simply doing nothing positive for the case, which is one of the main reasons why Andrews is being debated over his involvement. It is not an issue of wanting him to be involved, it is a matter of there is documented proof he was involved. The issue is the capacity of his involvement. He may have been in Whitechapel the whole time investigating Tumblety on the ground. Someone has to account for how they knew the information of Tumblety's four counts of gross indecency. I doubt Tumblety passed the info himself.

In conclusion, maybe now is the time to start discussing the connection, which may eventually lead to the answer. Maybe it won't, but it beats whatever the hell is going on now in this stagnant field. I for one, enjoy moving forward.

Stan

[A.P. Wolf]

Natalie, thanks for your encouraging words.
You might like to look at the 'Cornish Arms' in New York, mentioned by RJP in connection with Tumblety.
This was actually a home for newly arrived immigrants, many of them of course Irish; and from my reckoning the place was a hot bed of Irish politics tinged with just a flame of Fenian fire.

Stan, I don't like or appreciate it when your posts take on a personal tone.
I'm here to discuss Andrew's role in whatever.
Without getting personal.
I'm assuming that Dew is your single source of reference in this debate; and I also assume that I'm not the only person around here who has very serious doubts about Dew's veracity in this regard?

[Natalie Severn]

AP,
Like you I have reservations about Walter Dew"s memory ,some 50 years after the event,and I am also aware that several writers ,as well as yourself, have expressed concern about the accuracy of some of his statements-including John Eddleston,one of the first authors I read on the case.He states that Dew"s book,"I Caught Crippen" was "filled with inaccuracies".He doesnt unfortunately expand on this but other writers have expressed very similar misgivings.
But AP, I still think I am with Stan over this specific reference.
I cant see what purpose it would have served in this particular instance for Dew to have "invented" a "third' man Andrews .
At the time of the murders ,as you are no doubt well aware, Dew was a young detective in H division , so he should have known .He states ".....The officers sent from Scotland Yard were Chief Inspector Moore,Inspector Abberline and Inspector Andrews....["The Hunt for JtR -I caught Crippen"].

I shall take time tomorrow and look up the "Cornish Arms".You never know,something may be hidden away there!


Stan,
I really must look up some of your writings on Tumblety.So far I have only really looked carefully at Stewart Evans"s work,JtR First American Serial Killer and despite the Littlechild Letter and although it is meticulously researched and an excellent read I have to admit I was not convinced.Largely because of Tumblety"s height and known exhibitionism.
But I now wonder if he may have had links with the Clan----Alexander Sullivan and the Moroneys of tenth Avenue New York.I would love to know the answer to AP's question of the other day, asking how far away the Moroneys were from Mrs McNamara in 79 East Tenth Street New York....because I agree with you there may be no need to counterpose Tumblety as Parnell sympathiser/Clan runner to Tumblety Jack the Ripper.

Best

Natalie

[A.P. Wolf]

Natalie, I'm all for a full exploration of Inspector Andrews role in both the Fenian and Whitechapel Murder cases, but a lot of press reports do seem to cast serious doubts on either.
This one from the 'Daily Inter Ocean', January 18th 1889, is a fair example of my own doubts:

http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac287/HowieNina/scot1.jpg

[Natalie Severn]

Hi AP,
This really be the last for tonight.Thanks for a fabulous example of the dissemination of counter propaganda by Pinkertons.Its difficult to know what to believe.Pinkertons was the private detective agency that employed Abberline after he retired and became a detective to do with the protection of "hard cash" etc at Monaco[at the casino I believe] .
I believe too that the Times were absolutely desperate to avoid having to pay out compensation to Parnell for having accepted forgeries about him and printing defamatory stories about him penned by Sir Robert Anderson.So if they could get their private detective agency to find some dirt to support their story I bet they would have with the Private Commission coming up that Autumn of 1888 when all would be revealed---well not exactly all but a fair bit did come out! And in the end quite a few heads rolled and THe Times had to fork out a fortune to Parnell!
Where I believe you are close to the truth though is the matter of the extent to which Banks and and finance were protected in Victorian Times.
Ofcourse they would have sent a detective to help sort out financial stuff-mammon was worshipped after all and mattered a lot more than 5 unfortunates.
But there was indisputedly English "surveillance" and informers were operating overtime in Autumn 1888 in Washington, New York, Philadelphia regarding the Fenians
etc and there are newspaper reports that bear it out as well as official documentation.

Incidently I was delighted to see Inspector Shore mentioned in this report.He was according to Jenkinson one of the VERY corrupt Sr cops from Scotland Yard who allegedly took bribes,was a womaniser etc....interesting that he used to go over to America.Maybe he was in with Byrnes---another bent copper.
Oh well the plot thickens.Maybe the affluent Tumblety was in fact a source of bribery and corruption-----some knew what he got up to but knew they could line their pockets if they played it right with him!
Natalie

ps Andrews could have gone on to New York from Montreal to try to persuade Millen to attend the Special Commission----he was offered £10,000 to do so after all.That alone would have saved The Times a few bob!
And it was Millen"s paper The New York Herald that spread the stuff about Andrews being there to find dirt on the Parnellites!

[Stan Russo]

Natalie,

It's important to understand that Tumblety does not need to be JTR to have been investigated or for the investigation into anti-Fenianism activity, in connection with Tumblety, to have been linked with the JTR investigation. There is enough documentation to easily link the two, if one were inclined to look past the idea that JTR needed to be a monster.

With regards to Walter Dew - I completely understand your hesitation about relying on 50 year old remeberances. However, Dew makes a blanket statement in a book unrelated to Ripperology that names three officers seconded to Whitechapel. Two of those officers, Abberline and Moore, were there. Moore's role was largely unknown, because there is no documentation establishing his role. The argument that Andrews was not involved in the JTR investigation because of the lack of documentation is the equivalent as saying the same thing about Moore. Now, saying the same thing about Moore would be wrong.

You can believe that Dew is unreliable. That is your right. The argument you are engaging in is quite different though. Without absolute documentation, presumably contained within the Home Office Files or the Scotland Yard files, no officer can be cited as involved in the case unless it is decalred and reported in an official manner, regardless of his specific duties. That, to me, is really painting yourself into a corner.

The problem here is, and it is I believe the one that AP has, is that people have taken liberty with embellishing information for their own benefit. I'm not sure how Andrews working the case really accomplishes that goal for any theorist, specifically since from an intellectual observation of the known facts of the case, Francis Tumblety was not JTR. Therefore, I am not sure why Dew needs to be unreliable with specific respect to this issue, unless he needs to be unreliable specifically in the manner of challenging those who are using him to push their specific agenda.

In a sense, it is admirable. In a much clearer sense, it is wrong. To do what I believe is being done, to counter another wrong, just seems pointless. From what has gone on recently with the petty argument over primacy of discovery and publication, it seems a task that is par for the course and it is still wrong, but the right of anyone who wants to do it. In however many years, just look back at the progress of those who engage in these activities if you really want to see stagnancy.

With regards to AP's comments about disliking my tone, and with all respect to his Britishness, perhaps he should re-read his posts where I posed serious questions in an attempt to have a fruitful discourse and received riddles and rhymes, as if I wasn't worthy of a serious answer. It's pretty frustrating to try and converse with a fellow author over some important issues and get a condescing reply over and over again. What is even more frustrating, for myself, is to converse with a fellow author who so obviously has an agenda and disregards information on nothing more than personal preference, then mocks someone for disagreeing with him without presenting any facts or reasoning for his beliefs.

I'm not sure what his gripe is with RJP or Joe and whether or not it is a valid gripe. I just know that I have posed numerous questions to him in an honest discourse and received nothing that would make me believe he was either an expert on the case or even a knowledgable person on the overall case. I'm sure he knows everything there is to know about Cutbush and every single thing surrounding Cutbush's connection to JTR, but as so many before him have shown, that is not nearly enough to really go after the solution to this case.

I'm not saying that he or anyone does not have a right to investigate the case and write a book. But if you want to come off like a condescending blowhard, you should be able to back it up - see the slouch hate bet post on this thread for a better idea of what I mean.

Stan

[A.P. Wolf]

I'm posting the following two reports from The Times of September 14th 1888, as they do show exactly what duties Inspector Andrews carried out, and that they were far removed from murder investigations.
It is interesting to note that Inspector Andrews arrested the man outside the court on an extradition warrant on September 14th 1888 - with 3 victims of the Whitechapel Murderer still alive - and that even on that date the legal proceedings to have this man taken back to Canada to face trial were in place.
Formal identification of the Toronto Swindler took place in court by Inspector Andrews on November 7th 1888, two days before the murder of Mary Kelly, and on the very same day that Tumblety was arrested.
So Inspector Andrews boat trip to Canada was planned a full two months before the arrest of Tumblety and the murder of Mary Kelly.
So how could he be chasing ghosts?

http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac287/HowieNina/act2.jpg
http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac287/HowieNina/act3.jpg

[Natalie Severn]

Thankyou AP for this really first rate find.
So lets be clear here then AP and Stan,at least in the case of the priorities undertaken by Inspector Andrews during the Autumn of 1888:
The above newspaper account definitely reveals an Inspector Andrews carrying out "fraud squad" duties-that Autumn and this was very obviously a fraud case that had been allocated to him during that Autumn of 1888 and appears to me to have beeen a case that had taken precedence over any involvement in the Whitechapel murders he had originally been given in the September following Polly Nichols murder.
Clearly senior policemen didnt let their worlds drop about them like a lot of dropped trays because of the Whitechapel Murders.If a "more important" case came along involving pounds shillings and pence then it took precedence.
In the case of the Parnell Special Commission of that Autumn, it was the same for Sir Robert Anderson .He might have had overall charge of the Whitechapel Murders but attending to the matters concerning the Special Commission came 1st---- because it was more important to defeat Parnell and Home Rule and to save his reputation in that area.Not only that he also had to try also try to save "The Times" from having to pay out a huge compensation award to Parnell compensation money.
So that Autumn was a very busy time it would appear for the entire police force-what with Strikes,demonstrations,radicalised Immigrant Jews in Whitechapel,the murders of several prostitutes and above and beyond all else this pesky issue of Home Rule!
So was it any wonder that senior policemen got swapped about?
But AP dont you agree that it is also possible that some senior police may have had to attend to two or three issues at a time?Isnt it also possible that while Andrews WAS across the Atlantic on a fraud case he was also given the brief of going on from Canada to New York and to chase up on whether the ailing ace witness, Fred Millen,SpyMaster General for the Brits, could be persuaded to give evidence against Parnell etc at the Parnell Special Commission?Isnt it possible too that while in New York Andrews had been instructed to lok out for that Tumblety chap who had skipped bail and might be involved in running errands for the Parnellites----might even have been involved in the Ripper killings?
Hope this makes some sense.

Natalie

[A.P. Wolf]

Makes eminent sense to me, Natalie.
I have never been against the notion that Inspector Andrews might well have had some other business to attend to whilst in Canada and the USA.
But I am against efforts to portray Inspector Andrews' trip over the Atlantic as a 'pursuit' of Tumblety as a suspect in the Whitechapel Murders.
This it clearly was not.
As you can see from the detail I have posted, Andrews plans to escort the Toronto Swindler back to Canada were made whilst three of the victims were still alive; and Tumblety was yet to be arrested... on the same day that Inspector Andrews identified his own prisoner in court.
The fact that the Toronto Swindler was arrested on an extradition warrant of course means that he was to be extradited.
I know! Sometimes one has to state the absolute obvious.

And of course I'm not saying that Inspector Andrews may not have played some minor role in the investigations into the Whitechapel Murders; but I'm not prepared to believe that he was specially drafted in to work on the case; not while he was dealing with such a high profile and sensational fraud case that was widely reported in all the North American press of the day.
As can be seen, the fraud case occupied Inspector Andrews throughout the months of September, October, November and December of 1888.
A very busy man indeed.

[Natalie Severn]

I also wonder whether in fact Tumblety may have been a target because he was known to be gay.From studying the Cleveland St scandal a little,it seems
several chaps were allowed to run off to the continent rather than stand trial-even dear old Abberline was involved in turning a blind eye there and that is on record.
If it was common knowledge that Tumblety was gay and also that he usually travelled about with rolls of bank notes and diamonds in his pocket ,it isnt exactly stretching credulity too far to envisage a scenario where a couple of
bent coppers,knowing of his sexual orientation, were watching out for any opportunity that might present itself to feel his collar.... :washing:
Well you know what I mean....!
However I would not dispute that Tumblety could have done a lot more than visit "the Gents" with his rolled up bank notes and two earnest coppers hot on his heels.
In short,the rumours that grew about him throughout his life could have a basis in fact.He could have "helped out" the Fenians----he was known to on their side.He could have been obsessed with"surgical knives" and his bogus profession of surgery etc In fact he could have been the Ripper by default----- been under observation for other matters and noone caught him but spotted other unusual goings on apart from in the Gents Lavatories.
Tumblety was bothered about something,in my opinion,when he gave that interview that has been unearthed.I note that he was crafty enough to have browned his nose with Inspector Byrnes as fast as possible on arriving in New York----and everyone knows Inspector Byrnes was corrupt as s**t!
Natalie

[Robert Linford]

Nats, I've often thought : if you were a gay Fenian, with money behind you, and you knew/suspected that some of the biggest names in English society were using rent boys - well, from the point of view of blowing the lid off your enemies, the world was your oyster. Maybe Tumblety was doing some journalistic research.

Robert

[Stan Russo]

Natalie,

I never claimed to say what Andrews' duties were during the autumn of 1888. I only stated that I did not regard Walter Dew as unreliable, considering the fact he was right on target with Abberline and Moore working the case. Abberline and Moore were Special Branch and had to be brought in to work the JTR case from whatever other anti-Fenian activities they were doing.

If that doesn't tell you that there was a connection between the Special Branch work and the JTR investigation, then you simply aren't looking hard enough.

However, I will give you and AP the kudos, or AP himself, for discovering the duties of Andrews during the autumn of 1888, but you are right to state that that would not relegate him as not working on the case. It seems strange that Dew would name Moore, which he got right and name Andrews, which AP seems to believe he got wrong, as coming in to work the case.

Also, who discovered the information about Tumblety that led to his arrest on gross indecency charges? It wasn't Abberline, as he was working the ground investigation. It probably was not Moore, who appears to be working the newspaper angle. Perhaps it was Andrews. Someone had to research and discover that info, or does AP want us to believe that because it is not documented as to who discovered it that no one discovered it, despite that fact that it was discovered?

In a case as old as this, there will always be maybes and possibles, but to discount someone like Walter Dew's statement on the basis of bad memory, even when the majority of that same statement is proved true, seems agenda riddled. Then to discount that Andrews had anything to do with going to NY to look for or investigate Tumblety, because it is not documented, is an absolute farce. All the work that Andrews engaged in, specifically the spy rings and the Parnell Commission investigation all relate to Tumblety as a Special Branch suspect. Littlechild backs up the fact that Tumblety was on Special Branch surveillance.

How can someone say that because a Special Branch officer was working on fraud cases that he also must therefore have nothing to do with a major Special Branch suspect - suspect of Fenian ties - and since the Special Branch were all over the JTR investigation, how can one cohesively argue that the two were not connected, as AP is trying to do by demanding documentation on Special Branch operative missions, specifically relating to a man thought to have Fenian ties and links to or as JTR?

It would appear that nothing will ever satiate him so the question must be asked, why continue studying the case if complete stagnancy is the ultimate goal?

Stan

[Natalie Severn]

Stan,
I am not really questioning Dew"s memory over the three Detective Inspectors sent from Central Office on the Whitechapel murder investigation. All I was observing was that Andrews appears to have had his hands full with a very important fraud case, within weeks of being drafted in to the Ripper Investigation after Polly Nichols murder.All I was saying is that it looks to me, as it looks to AP, that this fraud case took priority over the Ripper investigation for Inspector Andrews and for several months that Autumn.However I believe it may well be the case that since it was The "New York Herald" which gave out the news that Andrews had moved on to New York in pursuit of evidence against Parnellites then this was what he was there for.
This makes sense to me because the witnesses Sir Robert Anderson desperately wanted over to testify on his behalf at the Special Commission that December1888, were Fred Millen and Thomas Beach[Le Caron] both based in New York .Also Millen was,or had been, a correspondent for the New York Herald ,so he would have had contacts there who may have been prepared to print "helpful stories".But the process of getting them over proved both difficult and potentially hugely costly-£20,000 each to give evidence.But there were risks in this for the government too.What else might they reveal?Sheridan[one of the Phoenix Park conspirators who had turned grass]was also suggested-but again----what else might come out?
So this Special Branch detective,Inspector Andrews, was almost certainly in New York primarilly to assist with these Special Commission related concerns.
So IMHO, If Tumblety had anything to do with the Parnellites then yes,Andrews would have been interested in his movements.As Jack the Ripper----I doubt it would have been a priority -unless ofcourse as you say,the two were linked in Tumblety"s case.
Thanks Stan for alerting me to the fact that Abberline,Moore and Andrews were all CID---I had overlooked that and it could be quite important!

Robert,
You may have hit on something there!!!The plot thickens....was Druitt Gay?
Was Tumblety a black mailer?How did he come by his money?
When did he jump bail?When did Druitt drown himself?
It may seem absurd but you never know!!!!

[Stan Russo]

Natalie,

Abberline, Moore and Andrews were all Special Branch. The CID was much more basic than what the Special Branch did, although that does not preclude the two from being synonymous at times, especially with Monro heading up both the Special Branch and the CID at one point and with Anderson heading up the CID during the JTR investigation.

I think Andrews is basically immaterial to the overall scheme, as long as it is understood that the JTR investigation and the anti-Fenian division, the Special Branch, were working together. To argue that fact would be AP Wolfian, yet since the secret counter terrorism division did not officially declare themselves as working the JTR case in Home Office or Scotland Yard Files, other than snippets here and there that are often disregarded, people will absolve the two of any link.

This is where my argument with him lied. He wanted a smoking gun to make an intellectual decision about the facts of the case. Without this smoking gun, he appears to have no interest in moving forward at all, hence the argument over Andrews and Tumblety, for arguments sake rather than looking past documented evidence for logical conclusions. Do you honestly believe that Andrews was in NY and at any moment the Special Branch could not have told him to drop the fraud case to pursue a possible accomplice to serial murders with Irish terrorist background? Whatever Andrews' duties were, I am sure as a member of the Special Branch, they in some way had a connection to Tumblety.

Once again, that does not mean that Francis Tumblety was JTR.

Stan

[R.J.Palmer]

I sometimes think all Ripperologists must be orphans. Do none of us have grandparents? When our 70 year old grandmother tells us that, as a young lass of 20, she had worked in the bank for Mr. Black, and was courted by a young teller named Hawkins, and that she damned near married the bloke, do we immediately think she’s bonkers? 'Unreliable'? What a remarkably dim view of humanity, and I don’t see it as either plausible nor accurate.

The argument always seems to be that Swanson, Dew, Macnaghten, Anderson, etc., all became hopelessly senile at a fairly young age and couldn’t remember either who the suspects were, or even who their fellow officers were....

The way I look at it, these fellows are giving you a peek through the fence and it is best not to stick your thumb in the knot-hole and pretend there is nothing over there.

And actually Stan, AP is avoiding the issue. Despite AP’s claims, Barnett was not arrested on an extradition warrant. The devil is often in the details. Andrews knew Barnett by sight, and arrested him in the West End one sunny afternoon on a very old fraud charge. It was not a ‘new’ investigation per se, and those charges were subsequently dropped. Meanwhile, Scotland Yard knew that Barnett was wanted in Toronto, and the extradition process then began---which prove to be long and labourious.

The arrest of Barnett is not what is important; it is the subsequent events that are important. The whole point that AP is avoiding is that Scotland Yard was not responsible for escorting Barnett back to Toronto. Indeed, it was highly unusual for them to do so. So why did they? And once delivered, why didn’t Andrews return immediately, but instead go on to spend another 2-4 weeks in North America (his exact return date is unknown) and what was he investigating? Remember, not that long ago, AP tried to tell us that he was bringing Barnett BACK to New York City. Next we’ll be hearing that he spent his time canoing in Lake Erie... The fact is no one know what he was doing, but Dew indirectly told us he was working the Ripper case.

Since the original charge against Barnett was 9 years old, and the fraud/extradition case was a Canadian one, this doesn’t really tell us anything about what all Andrews was working on in 1888. And I hardly think it allows Natalie and AP to state that his hands were full. I mean dear me, Swanson was involved in the arrest of an Alchemist in (if i recall) early 1889 or 1890. That certainly doesn’t mean he wasn’t ‘working’ the Whitechapel Murder investigation.


See you over on the Cutbush thread momentarily.

[SirRobertAnderson]

Abberline, Moore and Andrews were all Special Branch.

Hey folks - a question .

Are there special restrictions on the release of Special Branch files ? Obviously a lot of Ripper files are missing....Could it be that they're not 'missing' but filed elsewhere, and that 'elsewhere' is a place where Freedom of Information Act type of requests can't reach ??

[A.P. Wolf]

RJP
Andrews arrested the Toronto Swindler on an extradition warrant on the 14th September 1888 as he walked out of court on the original unproven and marginal charge.
Read the report I posted.

And just to make things absolutely clear, I do not doubt Dew's account because he was suffering from a loss of memory.
I think he was a liar.

[R.J.Palmer]

AP-- I did read the report. Long ago, in fact. Slapping Barnett back in the pen is merely a legal technicality; my point remains the same. It was a Canadian case, and Andrews' end of it was merely transfering paperwork for the extradition. It does not show he was loaded down with an enormous case. And as I say, it is the subsequent events that are important, not the arrest of Barnett. RP

P.S. By the way, AP, why do I get a weird feeling that if a document were to turn up showing Dew had claimed that a certain Inspector named Race had worked the Ripper case, his honesty would suddenly grow greatly in your eyes? There's no easier way to sweep an inconvenient fact under the rug than to call the messenger a liar.

[Natalie Severn]

Sir Robert,
Much of what I have posted about the Fenians came from Fenian Fire by Christy Campbell ,which was only able to be written because of the relatively recent release of Home Office Files.Much remains secret,including some material apparently on the Whitechapel Murders-contained in the same files.I believe most of these will remain secret "in perpetuity".
Natalie


Stan,
I follow you but I am still not convinced Andrews was doing anything out of the ordinary escorting this chap back to Canada.The British had Embassy men in every major American city who kept a very careful eye on what was happening regarding the Clan/Fenians etc often by word of mouth/face to face regarding the major British Informers ,Millen and Beach.They more or less knew what was going on day by day.
Andrews would have been likely there to hear in greater detail from Hoare[British Consul] in New York exactly what was what and maybe Andrews would have tried to discuss with Hoare the possibility of returning
the two informers to testify at the Special Ciommission.
RJ,
I am not saying Tumblety wasnt important in all this as well-he may have been but in what capacity?
Best
Natalie

[Natalie Severn]

I must admit I did have an uneasy feeling when I read some of Dew"s book on the Casebook.He seemed to "know" everybody----not just Mary Kelly but several other individuals that are mentioned in the case.It was very much as though he was making up a few "interesting additions" here and there to make a good story. Also there are several "inaccuracies" that several writers have referred to.

[A.P. Wolf]

Yes, Natalie, summed up perfectly.
When I first read Dew's book way back when in the British Library I was filled with unease, because I thought the fellow was selling me a line.
Because of his involvement in one famous case he really wanted to give the impression that he had been personally involved in another famous case... which he wasn't, apart from chasing some bloke around some market stalls.
Rewriting history has only one option. Fiction.
But many employ it.

[SirRobertAnderson]

Sir Robert,
Much of what I have posted about the Fenians came from Fenian Fire by Christy Campbell

I remember you mentioning the title awhile back on the Casebook, and I picked up a copy which is now in my monsterous pile of books to be read .

I really can't shake the idea that if we really understood all that was going on with respect to the Special Branch and the Ripper investigation, we'd understand a heck of a lot more about the case itself, and I don't think it'd lead to an "insane Polish Jew" . Sometimes I wonder if when Anderson referred to the Ripper's people not giving him up he wasn't talking about the Irish.

[How Brown]

Dear Rajah:

Excuse me for a moment here...

For a long time...people believed without hesitation the recall of days gone by from Stephenson ( Borderland )...and believed the stories of his going to Africa ( impossible as proven by Graham Wilson ) and his initiation into The Lodge of Alexandria in 1863 by Lytton in London (the next closest thing to impossible,since he was pushing a pencil in Hull,and not taking into consideration a weekend trip to London...which didn't happen ).

I know what and how you mean what you say about the memories of our elders and most times they are pretty darn accurate. There's no question Roger...you are right. If the elders are healthy,there's a good chance their memories are pretty accurate....especially in simple scenarios,like my granny and yours and old guys-that-got-away.

Yet,this field more or less needs people who won't accept these recollections without careful scrutinization. Imagine,as I am sure you have long before I,what it would be like if some of the people/factors( a good example is Ostrog ) were not diligently pursued for veracity. Ostrog's candidacy might see our site or Casebook with as much speculation as say a suspect like Tumbelty,Druitt,The Jews,Cutbush,or whomever.

[R.J.Palmer]

Howard -- Hi. Good to hear from you. My schtick has been, and always will be, that blind skepticism is just as bad as gullibility. It is no more accurate, and it is no more wise. Indeed, the two are one and the same. So you are misintrerpret me, old friend, if you think I am suggesting not to check the details.

As wonderfully amusing as it is to read AP's bashing of Dew, it isn't convincing. Dew was a Dectective in H-Division in 1888. Of course he worked the Ripper case. Is there independent evidence for it? Yes. Dew even briefly had a suspect of his own named Henry Fife, who was brought into custody on 23 November, 1888. Dew seems to have thought Fife was the murderer, because he was trying to get a smelly piece of meat fried up for him in a lowly dive. So we’re not only going to need to make Dew a liar, but also, at the very least, Sergeant Thomas Stacey, and Inspector Walter Beck liars as well. Not a very convincing way to go about things. As Mr. Russo points out, Dew was certainly right about Abberline and Moore. I can't afford to assume Dew is lying, just because I might not like what he is telling me. Ditto Anderson, Swanson, etc.

As I already posted, but perhaps you didn't see, I think Martin Fido had the best "take" on Walter Dew. How Fido approached a fundamentally honest, but problematic source is one of the highlights of Ripper writing.

And I'm not sure I follow your last comment. What does Ostrog tell us? That the cops were bonkers? That's not what Ostrog is telling me. Cheers, RP

[How Brown]

Rajah:

Not to divert the thread,but yes,I have seen your usage of Mr.Fido in the analogy...

What I meant about Ostrog,is that if Ogan or someone else hadn't come along,we might....might....still consider him as strongly as we do Druitt or Kosminski. It took a little work and effort to wipe him off the Mcnaghten list as a suspect for us.

Later,buddy.:music:

[R.J.Palmer]

AP - A little question for you before I call it a night. You write:

"As can be seen, the fraud case occupied Inspector Andrews throughout the months of September, October, November and December of 1888.
A very busy man indeed."

Ahem. I think you're going to have to do better than that, old friend. By your own admission, Barnett has his backside parked in a cell on Sept. 14th. He isn't smelling sea water for another 2 1/2 months. It's a Canadian case, and all the evidence (and investigating) is going in the Great White North. Are we really supposed to believe Andrews had his hands full? What with, precisely?

[Stan Russo]

I think the greater point has been lost here. Tumblety was seen as someone who should have tabs kept on him and have his wherebouts investigated and then later considered as connected in some manner to the JTR murders.

Rather than arguing about the day to day activities of an officer within an anti-terrorist police squad, which is pointless to the degree that AP wants it taken, which will never be revealed, the goal should be trying to merge the information into learning something more about the JTR murder investigation, thus possibly moving the case forward.

I think we can all see which direction some want the case to go - in a straight line to nowhere.

Stan

[A.P. Wolf]

You gents can talk I'll give you that.
My avowed purpose here is emphatically simple.
To stop in its tracks a reckless and ill founded notion that Inspector Andrews 'pursued' Tumblety to New York.
I think I'm making a very good job of that, by using source material from the time.
I have made available a number of press reports which cast serious doubts on such a notion... and the notion that Inspector Andrews was a senior officer seriously involved in the investigations into the Whitechapel Murders.
This may not sit kindly with the troops, but rest assured that all the material I produce - or quote from - is purely factual and not my opinion or conjecture.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Folks,
Inspector Littlechild"s letter of 1913, stated : "after Tumblety left Boulogne he was never heard of afterwards.It was believed he committed suicide but certain is it that from this time the "Ripper" murders came to an end".
So whatever else he gave us Littlechild did not,in this correspondence with
Sims state that Tumblety had fled to New York.Why not?
It would be ridiculous to say it was because it was "top secret information"
it wasnt----far from it.The American and Canadian press has reported it widely,years and years before, and the recent interview posted by RJ confirms it.So would"nt you think, that in a private correspondence between these two old aquaintances,some reference to his escape to America would have come up?
Finally,it is totally "unproven" to state that Andrews is somehow chasing
Tumblety across the Atlantic. The evidence we have is that he was escorting a fraudster across the Atlantic which makes complete sense.They may well have found it useful to have Andrews track down Tumblety in New York.He had jumped bail and they may have wanted an eye kept on his movements.
But if this was in connection,not only with the Whitechapel murders but also in connection with something of much more crucial importance to the English Prime Minister as well as chief of police Sir Robert Anderson,that of finding dirt on Parnell,then they had only to alert their British Embassy staff and their major Informers in New York,who were firmly entrenched in Fenian cells in New York, and were telegraphing London via the British Consulate"s man, Hoare,daily.
The sort of questions being asked by telegraph were "do you want one of the Phoenix Park conspirators to testify at the Special Commission?"
This was what was occupying the minds of the British Prime Minister and Sir Robert Anderson et al in the Autumn of 1888 and if Tumblety had anything to do with that it has not yet been proven .We do not know what Littlechild meant when he said "he was a frequent visitor to London and on these occasions constantly brought under police notice".....ever thought it was mostly because he was forever hanging out in the Gents Toilets?

Best
Natalie

[Stan Russo]

Natalie,

First of all, I don not remember saying "chasing", with regards to Andrews in NY for Tumblety. If I did, I spoke wrong. But any look at the evidence we know should show that Tumblety was being followed and waited for in NY, by CI Byrnes, in connection with the JTR investigation. Once again, I'll state, to follow a suspect and engage in surveillance against them does not mean that they are guilty of the crimes for which they are being watched for.

Now, as I have stated numerous times, the Tumblety / Andrews debacle that this has turned out to be has only solidified the current mindset of Ripperology to argue over items that are of miniscule importance to the case. It does not matter if Andrews was sent to NY to find Tumblety, sent to NY to escort someone and then told to go find Tumblety, sent to NY to escort someone and told to look into Tumblety's friends or told to do nothing with regards to Tumblety in NY. The Andrews line of debate is interpretational and as I have said numerous times, we will never find the document that outlines the activity of a counter terrorist operative, such as AP wants or needs in order to achieve closure.

More important to the case, which to me, is the whole point of debating, is that Tumblety was followed to NY, was under surveillance and was considered both a Fenian and a JTR suspect by the Special Branch. The intracacies of that is what we should be focusing on, however, without the file that clearly reads the Special Branch's information regarding tactics in connection with a suspect they believe was involved in the Fenian underground and connected to the JTR murders, there are those who will try with all their might to prevent any discussion of such events, such as AP. From his own admission, in his post, to stop the reckless notion of people discussing the fact that Andrews pursued Tumbelty or in any way, shape or form had anything to do with the JTR investigation. He goes so far as to call Dew an outright liar, even though he neglects to explain why Dew didn't "lie" about Abberline and Moore and what Dew "lying" about Andrews would have gained him.

With regards to Littlechild, I am not sure why it is so tough to understand the secretive nature of Special Branch officers, especially in correspondance with a journalist. Also, I have stated, that by 1888 Littlechild had become the equivalent of Swanson at the CID, a desk jockey. He may have known more about the case than anyonbe and contrarily he may have seen only the documents that could be filed versus not seeing the initiatives of the Special Branch that could not be written down on paper. I can almost hear AP grinning at that, in a naive way.

The Parnell Commission was extremely important to the Special Branch, specifically Anderson, because of what Anderson had done the previosu year, which has been discussed at length on many threads. To say that this investigation into Parnell Fenian ties, which you have conceded was conducted in part by Andrews, had nothing to do with the JTR investigation would be reckless. They do not have to be mutual, but they were definately not thoroughly independant. That alone brings Andrews into the JTR investigation.

Perhaps it is too big to understand, with regards to all the peripheral Special Branch activity that had an impact or correlation to the JTR murders, for us to ever truly know the exact role of every officer, specifically Andrews.

I don't see what benefit is gained from calling Dew a liar regarding Andrews other than a benefit for one's own agenda. I also do not see the proof of that being a lie, other than newspaper scraps of an assignment by a counter terrorist police officer that does not proclude him from investigating other matters.

More important are the questions of:

Who gathered the information of the four gross indecency charges against Tumblety? (still not answered and asked numerous times)

What does Tumblety's involvement, with specific regards to the Special Branch, actually mean to the case?

The rest of these arguments are just Wolfian smoke and mirrors without any point or progressive substance.

Stan

[Natalie Severn]

Stan,first off regarding the Littlechild / Sims letter,it was written as I said in 1913 ie long after Sir Robert Anderson himself had admitted, in 1910, to having told a heap of lies about Parnell to the Times Newspaper and also long after it had been "public knowledge" that Tumblety was an American suspect-it had been all over the press there.
Second,"lying" may even,in the [Irish]Special Branch at any rate,have been a "condition of service"!Maybe it was why Monro resigned----he said he couldnt do evil......!!!!But some of them were donning that many disguises,giving false names ,chasing people around Paris and Switzerland to get them to testify at the Special Commission etc that their left hands didnt seem to know what the right was doing.I think we have got to get real over how dirty they had to get themselves during that Autumn.
But to return to whether or not Dew might have "lied" about Andrews.That is something I cant answer.Did he "lie"? I dont know----or at least that is perhaps not what I would call it.
I believe ,however,that he both "embellished" his script and had one or two startlingly unfortunate "lapses of memory" here and there.For example he talked of having"known" Mary Kelly who he said was "pretty and buxom and always wore a spotless white apron"----come on Stan,-----I mean!Out of the thousands of girls walking the streets of Whitechapel....
The next even more outrageous "mistake" or "slip of memory" call it what you will but the truth it aint was when he stated on page 72 of "I CAught Crippen" that " Mrs Mortimer was the only person to have seen the Ripper in the vicinity of his crimes.".......WHAT????!!!!
So Dew,50 years on, believed LEON GOLDSTEIN ,him with the "shiny black bag"[full of empty fag packets or some such] of 22 Christian Street,who later went himself to the police station after seeing himself in newspapers to explain who he was , Inspector Dew, this impeccably reliable resource you and RJ would have us believe, has 50 years later "Leon Goldstein" down as Jack the Ripper!Well now Thanks Mr Dew.Thats really helpful that is!

And you and RJ still give Dew"s accounts time of day!



Natalie

[A.P. Wolf]

Nicely said and done, Natalie.
Dew comes across in his writings as a bit of a braggard and blagger, and I certainly wouldn't let him butter my toast.
As I said his entire connection with the Whitechapel Murders was chasing some bloke around some market stalls and nabbing his collar.
At least that was more than Inspector Andrews ever did in connection with the Whitechapel Murders.

[Natalie Severn]

well er....yes and no AP. My mind is open as to what Inspector Andrews may or may not have done about Tumblety in New York.
One thing I am interested in is Byrnes who seems to have rapidly eyed up his chance at lining his own pocket on hearing of Tumblety"s arrival there.The two appear to have had a complete understanding of one another.
Natalie

[R.J.Palmer]

No offense taken, Natalie, but please don't misstate my position. Nowhere did I say that Dew was an ‘impeccably reliable source.’ What I said was very different and much more complex. You and AP are working yourself up into a sort of zealous campaign, and the trouble with zealots is that they tend to see things in a cheesy, black and white sort of way. I know that you are capable of being a much better thinker than that!

We don’t get to pick and chose our historical sources. We get them warts and all, and, frankly, I wouldn’t want it any other way. Dew is a genuine historical source and he’s a mixed bag. We have to take him on his own terms. I’ll suggest once again that you go back and read what Martin Fido wrote about Dew. Fido saw that Dew was quite inaccurate on many points, but kept on thinking, and found Dew ‘extremely valuable.’ Indeed, he found Dew’s mistakes extremely valuable, because he realized that they often helped him (Fido) figure out what was going on.

I think this must go back to Fido being a Shakespearean scholar. He knows the value of listening just as carefully to the fools and the beggar women as to the kings and lawyers.

In other words, you can’t expect to approach historical sources in a simplistic ‘reductionist’ sort of way, reducing them to simple ‘truth’ values, hoping that this will lead you to the answer!! Reality is more complex than that. These are human events and human crimes, and they need to approached on human terms. I prefer to see Anderson, Dew, Barnett, etc. etc. as living breathing people, often complex, often wrong, often misleading; but once I get inside them, I think I can learn from them something important. Knowing the exact measurements of Berner Street isn't going to help you; allowing Dew to throw his feet up on your hob might.

And next I'll be hearing that General Montgomery didn’t know Winston Churchill was Prime Minister!

[A.P. Wolf]

RJP
If Dew threw his feet up on my hob all you would hear is the click back of the trigger on my Tranter service pistol.
The only thing I heard about Fido was that his bark was worse than his bite.

[Dan Norder]

My avowed purpose here is emphatically simple.
To stop in its tracks a reckless and ill founded notion that Inspector Andrews 'pursued' Tumblety to New York.

Wolf Vanderlinden already proved that in his article on Tumblety that ran in Ripper Notes a year and a half ago. The fact that it's still being argued shows how much some people refuse to let go of old ideas even after they are shown to be wrong.

[A.P. Wolf]

You could be right, of course, Dan, but perhaps as I've always maintained the population density of the coverage of all the Rip mags is so small as to not leave a dent in the scheme of things.
As a gesture of your well-known largesse could you not throw up Wolf's orginal article up here for debate amongst a wider audience?

[Natalie Severn]

OK RJ lets accept Martin Fido"s thoughts as arising out of an understanding of a " Shakesperian approach" to the interpretation of History.[They dont,as we well know,because when anxious to prove his point, Martin goes to great lengths to discover the true facts of the case-its only when he reaches a brick wall that his imagination takes fire!]
But staying with the "speculative" approach----the one that may not provide the reader with the truth of a historical event,lets take Shakespeare"s approach to the great tragedy,"Macbeth".Was Macbeth really the murderous conniving villain of History,as appears to have been accepted by Shakespeare, or was he, the rightful King of Scotland ,who had his throne "appropriated" by an English War Lord?
Here"s the rub.If we were to depend only on Shakespeare"s interpretation of what went on in those distant times in Scotland,we will know nothing of the view of certain Scots that their version of events was simply and straightforwardly "erased from History" upon the victory of the English War Lords.
So how do we separate "fact from fiction" other than by painstakingly searching through records to find the truth-or, in quite another context, as Martin"s mentor Shakespeare shrewdly observed, when recognising forthcoming critism to Hamlet over his eagerness to "do battle" :
"Rightly to be great, Is not to stir without great arguement,
But greatly to find honour in a straw
When honour is at the stake"
Natalie

[Stan Russo]

I have never read the Vanderlinden article where he proves that Andrews did not "pursue" Tumblety to NY. I'm not sure how one can "prove" that a Special Branch operative "was not" told to investigate into Tumblety's whereabouts or associates while in NY, or that Andrews trip to NY was in part because of information gathering on Tumblety.

Once again, I am not sure how one can disprove the possible secret assignment of a Special Branch operative.

I understand that Andrews did have clearly defined assignments during this period of time, such as fraud investigation and prisoner escort, however, I believe it is foolish to think that at the drop of a hat, Monro, the man who controlled the Special Branch and after mid-November, the Metropolitan Police Department, could not have told Andrews to drop or finish his assignment and infer into Tumblety, whom the Special Branch believed was a terrorist operative and connected to the JTR murders.

I do not believe, once again, that one can disprove the movements of anti-terrorist operatives through the use of documented or recorded assignments. That is not the same as saying Andrews invented plastic, because we just don't know what he did, but there is a record that he was there on the morning of September 1st, with Abberline and Moore (who were there) and there is the fact that he was in the exact same place Tumblety was after he gave Byrnes and the NYPD the slip.

Back to Dew, I understand that he was boastful. That has never been an issue. He may or may not have known Mary Kelly by sight. There is a record that he was there at Miller's Court on the morning of the murder and her image may have stuck with him, being a Detective Constable and not an Inspector at the time of the murders. He also made boastful claims about other cases, as many, including Fido have pointed out. My question regarding this is, how does "lying" as AP calls it, about Andrews make him seem more important than he was?

I'll repeat that so it is not inside a paragraph in the hopes of getting a response. "How does "lying", as AP calls it, about Andrews make him seem more important than he was?

Here's the best point, even if Andrews had little or nothing to do with the case, which I believe the former of little is the right assertion, that still does not change the facts about Tumblety's release from jail on bail, on the 16th, and his subsequently being followed to Paris and then NY by a Special Branch operative, not to mention being waited for by the NYPD who were to put Tumblety under surveillance. You could literally take Andrews out of the picture and that still would not change the facts above. However, the fact that the NYPD was to place him under surveillance should lead one to believe that the Special Branch thought Tumblety might lead them to someone connected to both the Fenians and the JTR murders. Monro's rediscovered memoirs allude to this.

But rather, the argument continues over whether Dew was a liar and whether or not Andrews secret mission existed or not, when the true discussion should be how this all relates to the overall case.

Frankly, I don't care if Andrews was sent to NY, arrived in NY and told to find him or happened to be in NY and told to do nothing. There was another Special Branch officer following Tumblety, who was actually on the boat with him, which has been attested to in many documents, although if memory serves me, the Special Branch man is referred to as an officer and Tumblety is reported to have locked himself in his room to avoid this man.

As far as the Ripper Notes article, I will search my back issues and read it, but I am still not sure how someone can "prove" something like this, even though it truly does not matter in the grand scheme of things, and even if you could "prove" it, which as we all know the boards have been filled with rhetoric on the fact that you cannot prove a negative, this would not stop AP from going after issues on an agenda driven basis. There would be just a different issue.

Stan

[A.P. Wolf]

Stan, I'm a bit rusty here, but surely there was no 'Special Branch' in 1888, but only the 'Special Irish Branch'?
One understands the logic behind appointing Abberline to the Whitechapel Murder case from his 'Fenian Fire' duties, as his knowledge of the porn pedlars, criminals and prostitutes of the East End was really very good.
But I think we tread on very sketchy ground here when we classify certain officers as belonging to 'Special Branch' as the majority of these officers were generally employed at Scotland Yard as CID officers.
I have yet to find Inspector Andrews employed in any other remit than that of high level fraud cases; and would suggest to you that it is highly unlikely that any officer of the 'Special Irish Branch' would be employed in a murder or fraud investigation, unless of course that murder or fraud touched on the question of Irish terrorism.
I'm afraid I can find neither connection in connection with Tumblety; and as I have posted elsewhere at great length I still await an explanation why a British Consul should intervene on behalf of one his citizens - that being Tumblety -if that citizen was not British?

[Stan Russo]

AP,

The two were the same. It was the Branch headed up by James Monro, called both the Special Branch and or the Special Irish Branch. The term Special Branch has been used more frequently, perhaps due to the addition of monarchial bodyguard to the duties of the Special Irish Branch, at some time around 1885.

Abberline's coming to Whitechapel to run the ground investigation does make perfect sense. He was however, a member of the Special Branch early in his career and returned to "Special Branch" duties in 1887. The problem lies in taking him away from those duties, whatever they were, to have him run a murder investigation after only 2 victims, discounting Emma Smith. This is where the Special Branch and the JTR investigation collide.

That is why, rather than try to understand the ramifications of this, you arguing over the documented duties of a Special Branch officer, which Walter Andrews certainly was, seems peripheral to the purposes of progressing the case. It may be something you are interested in, the fraud cases of a covert anti-terrorist operative, but in all fairness, what does that really have to do with learning more about the case and going on from that?

I am positive that there were duties of the Special Irish Branch, or the Special Branch are not and never will be known to us, in the same fashion that there are things the CIA or MI6(the British equivalent) do today that we do not know. That is not conspiratorial, but just the fact of a covert organization doing what they neded to do. If fraud was a part of their duties, as it seems apparent that it was with Andrews handling those case, then I am sure, as we have seen with Abberline, working both Fenian cases and the JTR investigation, that Andrews could have had more than one duty, whether recorded or not. I can't honestly think anyone would believe that the entire operational docket of a anti-terrorist organization would be documented for the layperson to see.

It may be true that Andrews had nothing to do with Tumblety and that his being in NY directly after Tumblety fled London for Paris and then NY is nothing more than a mere coincidence. I am not sure how that changes anything about the case, which is what I believe, with all due respect, you are trying to do. I can't imagine why someone who was put forth a book purporting to offer a theory on the identity of JTR would do this unless it was driven by some agenda. If I am wrong, I apologize. If I am wrong, what is the purpose, when it does not change the facts regarding Tumblety.

Presenting the documented information is fine. I could present the September 22nd memo where Monro is slated as having more knowledge about the JTR case than it would seem he should. I could present the documented information from Monro's memoirs where he states that the JTR murders were connected to Fenianism, as emanating from a letter he received purportedly written by J S Walsh( I believe), a known Fenain agent. This turned out to be a hoax, but in that hoax lay the Special Irish Branch, as you refer to them, coming into the foray of the JTR investigation.

All this information is out there. It's how you take that information and process it to learn about the case, rather than forcing progress through documents that will never be there and evidence that was never collected.

Perhaps the answer to your British Consul intervening on behalf of Tumblety is a direct result of the Special Branch's hardened belief that he was connected to the murders, not the murderer, but that he could lead them to information about the murderer/s? Perhaps it was nothing. Whatever it was, it still does not change the facts and the logical analysis that should come from reading them.

Stan

[Natalie Severn]

I have had time to read both Wolf Vanderlinden"s articles about Tumblety.
I found them wide in scope,detailed and very thoroughly referenced.Wolf could find no references to Andrews ever arriving in New York.If stories were reported in Newspapers of his alleged visit there he believes it may have been as a "cover" to deflect attention from a dangerous Chicago meeting he may have made to talk to one of the chief British agents,Thomas Beach[Le Caron] who did come over and testify in February 1889 at the Special Commission which caused him to have to go into hiding for the rest of his life.
On the other hand,and this is just my own speculation,Hoare,at the British Consul,in New York was prevaricating over letting the other British Agent and infiltrator, Fred Millen,
attend the Commission also to testify.So it is possible Andrews went to New Yorkin December when things had begun to really hot up at The Special Commission, to try to persuade Millen in this regard----knowing the stuck his boss Robert Anderson would be in if he didnt,In the event Millen couldnt go because he died in April 1889.
Wolf suggests another scenario related to Andrews recorded visit to Niagara,while he was in Toronto during the week of 11th -18th December to attend a "conference" there,probably with two Scotland Yard men, Inspector Shore and Inspector Jarvis [both of whom had been known to have been involved in "Irish work"previously].
At this meeting/confrence it appears they met up with the Thomsons, a married couple,both detectives for Pinkertons,acting for the Times re the Parnell Commission.There was also thought to be present a Canadian private detective called Kirby,who believed he had vital information relating to the Phoenix Park
Murders given by an Irish Labourers who had allegedly worked with two of the Phoenix Park assassins on the New York aqueduct.
In the event it appears that that was mostly boloney as the "important info" never showed up but there are hints of meetings with Sheridan[one of the conspirators turned grass] also badly wanted for "revelations" by The Times
etc and Pinkerton"s went to the trouble of denying any anti Parnell acticities etc which ofcourse they would do.
So Inspector Andrews does appear to have been in Canada and Niagara---possibly even New York or Chicago-though there are no actual records of the latter that have turned up so far.
He may also have had a go at watching Tumblety"s movements but there hasnt been much turned up on this that hasnt been pure speculation on the part of the Press.
Natalie

[R.J.Palmer]

Natalie - You continue to misstate my position. What on earth for?? I never said anything about a “shakespearean approach to history,” and you’re turning it into something rather ridiculous. And you dont’ know me very well if you think I’m not dedicated to a painstaking examination of the original documentation and the “facts.”

Walter Dew worked in H-Division in 1888. This is an independently verifiable FACT. AP stating that he did nothing but chase men around market stalls might strike you as hiliarious, but it has no basis in reality. It’s a skit from “MacBeth” being staged on the Globe; innuendo rather than fact. Documentation recently recovered by Donald Rumbelow shows that Andrews was working with Swanson and Littlechild in October/Novemember, 1888---at the very moment these events were going on. A very uncomfortable fact that you seem to wish to avoid. I sometime think Stewart Evans must be the most frustrated man in Ripper studies; documentation keeps turning up that supports his original hypothesis, but all the colleseum want is more blood! You have no explanation for why Andrews was woking with Swanson and Littlechild---the man who named Tumblety--- nor does AP Wolf. And when Dew was promoted to Chief Inspector do you know whose position he filled? Frank Froest’s --the same detective that had worked Tumblety’s gross indecency case. Dew knew these people and worked with them! And all you really have is your continued efforts to call him a liar, and state that I am ignoring the “facts.” All I am saying about Fido is that he has the brains to realize that where the documentation is missing or incomplete, we have to rely on historical probabilities. We have to “size the people up.” It is really probable that Dew didn’t know who the heck was woking the Whitechapel case?? If you think so, then I must respectfully disagree. And the contemporary documentation , such as it is, SUPPORTS the fact that Andrews was working the case in some capacity. If you want to believe differently, by jove, you’re welcome to it.

And since when in the hell did Vanderlinden PROVE what Andrews was doing in America in 1888? You and Dan Norder must have read a very different article than I did!! It’s amazing to me how convinced people can be by vague innuendos and speculations carefully crafted. I hate to break this to you, but there is no evidence whatsoever that Andrews worked in the Special Branch. He was an Inspector specializing in criminal cases. If you have read Fenian Fire carefully, which obviously he have, (I can’t imagine Norder has) it should be obvious that sending Inspectors to “chase Fenians” was not even how Scotland Yard operated. Jenkinson & Co worked entrapment plots, and used a network of paid informers and infiltrators. Surely you know that. So the idea that Andrews was parachuted into America to hunt down fenians is a ridulous one. Clearly, Andrews was working a criminal investigation in America...which is entirely consistent with a background check on Tumblety. The bottom line is that you’re claiming that your own speculations are better than Stewart Evans’ speculations. They aren’t. Where the facts are few, speculation runs rampant.

RP

[SirRobertAnderson]

I sometime think Stewart Evans must be the most frustrated man in Ripper studies;

I agree with you R.J., and before I forget again, major props to you for your recent Tumblety interview. :hail:

I'll tell you what would be a terrific read: if Dan and Wolf were willing to post the RN article in question on the Forums, and you were to take a 'stab' at annotating it. Of course, the other side would get a shot at rebuttal.

Perhaps I'm walking through Hell in a gasoline suit, but I'd like to think that would be a great thread and could indeed be kept civil.

[Natalie Severn]

RJ,
I am very bothered and quite upset to think Stewart is so irritated and also upset by all this.Therefore, before I continue I first want to apologise to Stewart for any unitentional misunderstandings on my part.The same with yourself.I was not saying Walter Dew was a liar or that Inspector Andrews didnt pursue Tumblety to New York.
In the case of Walter Dew I was only questioning his reliability in certain specific instances and wondering whether this might have implications for his overall reliability as a source.In the case Of Inspector Andrews ,I was merely trying to find verification of Andrews New York visit as a result of noticing that several others were questioning it.

I am therefore operating regarding a currently rather contentious matter concerning what Walter Dew said about Inspector Andrews and without sufficient information to satisfy myself that what is claimed on either side about them has been proven fact.Once again I apologise if people have misunderstood what I said about Walter Dew: I did not call him a liar,nor do I believe he "lied" as I understand that term.I believe some of his recollections are unreliable and I cited the example of Leon Goldstein, where Dew appears to have mixed up the identities of men carrying black bags and referred to Mrs Mortimer"s sighting of one such man as the only person to have seen Jack the Ripper.She wasnt.The man she saw was apparently Leon Goldstein.
Since there is not much written record of Inspector Andrews involvement in the Ripper case apart from in the very first instance but there is recorded evidence of him being involved in the defrauding of a Canadian Bank and the escorting of the fraudster across the Atlantic in December 1888, I have wondered whether Andrews could have been all that involved in the Ripper Investigation.I believe it is quite reasonable for me to explore his involvement especially as others have begun to present evidence that may possibly throw doubt on that.
Inspector Andrews after all was doing what he did some operating some 100 odd years ago and without me having access to official papers I can only try and make sense out of the materials that have come to my attention including newspaper reports from the time-often wholly unreliable and some containing deliberate "misinformation" -sometimes through careless reporting and sometimes because British Intelligence may have wanted it that way.So that source for example needs to be treated with extreme scepticism.However,believe it or not I am still inclined to believe that Andrews may have done just-ie track Tumblety in New York after leaving Canada.I will discuss why I am reaching that conclusion at a later time when I have more understanding of his movemets.


I accept entirely what you are saying about what Inspector Andrews job was,thank you for that RJ. I know too that Walter Dew worked for H division during the Ripper Investigation and it is quite true that he ought to have known what he was talking about.Overall ,despite some reservations,I do think I can accept what he says about Inspector Andrews involvement .

Once again,apologies to Stewart and yourself ,for any unintentional misunderstandings arising out of either my ignorance or my present level of understanding of the subject matter in hand.
Best Wishes
Natalie

[Stan Russo]

Is it me or have we split the maximun amount of hairs and still gone nowhere in the overall case. I, for one, will now refer to this case as the "Kojak murders", since I can't imagine there could be more we can split hairs over without really getting anything done.

It is such a waste, the kind of watse that historians such as Rumbelow, Whittingon-Egan, Odell and others talk about when they refer to the opportunities that Leonard Matters and other early Ripper theorist had to interview the actual people who were around and decided instead to come up with wild specualtion and further pseudonym-named suspects.

Stan

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Folks,
When I was reading part one of Wolf"s Tumblety articles in Ripper Notes I noticed that he referred to a description of a detective in,"The World" dated 4 December 1888.
The World describes the detective as a clownish figure who strutted round in front of Mrs McNamara"s lodging house----presumably with Tumblety tucked up inside it.
He was a little man with enormous red whiskers and a smoothly shaved chin.He was dressed in an English tweed suit and wore an enormous pair of boots with soles an inch thick.....first he would assume a villain appearance.Then his hat would be pulled down etc .....then he would throw his head back,march with a swagger and whistle gaily.....then he would go to have long conversations in a saloon on the corner where the bar keeper would end up having long conversations with him.

Then there is a second report from the New York Herald:The bar tenders in McKenna"s saloon,at the corner of Tenth St and Fourth Avenue,,knew him well.And it was here I discovered that he was an English detective on the track of the suspect.This man wore a dark moustache and side whiskers,a tweed suit,a billycock hat and very thick walking boots.He was of MEDIUM height and had very sharp eyes and a rather florid complexion......he made some enquiries about Tumblety but gave no information about himself.


I happen to have come across another character with a very florid face
and red hair and whiskers.This was "Red Jim" McDermott,or James McDermott who was JENKINSON"S agent provocateur and "man in America". Christy Campbell gives us this description of him:
With his crimson cheeks,ginger moustache,seal skin waistcoat he looked like a yellow press cartoon.
While I acknowledge this is a very long shot,it would be most interesting if it were McDermott,who had been Jenkinson"s agent provocateur,a spy in the O"Mahoney wing of the Fenian Brotherhood-----Jenkinson"s "Man" in New York!

Natalie

[R.J.Palmer]

Natalie---Thanks for that. I feel a bit rotten because I get the sense that I have merely browbeat you into partial concession, rather than having relied on persuasion. Which is never my aim, and I’m sorry about it.

I’ll make just one further comment, and then I’ll button it. I think that perhaps we have more common ground than you think. You write:

"The evidence we have is that he [Andrews] was escorting a fraudster across the Atlantic which makes complete sense."

True, but I humbly disagree that it ‘makes sense.’ While AP is correct in stating that Andrews arrested Barnett on an extradition warrant on Sept 14., my position is that there was really nothing further for Andrews to do at that point. We know a great deal of the case against Barnett, and we know the evidence was all on the Canadian side of the water. Andrews was not ‘busy’ with this case, and there was no obligation whatsoever for Andrew to escort Barnett back to Canada. Further, once delivered, he could have turned around at Halifax and went back home; instead he stayed in North America for another 2-4 weeks investigating...something. I think we merely need to listen to what the contemporaries are telling us. There was wide speculation on both sides of the Atlantic concerning Andrew’s trip. The contemporaries knew something else was going on, but they did not know what. Some speculated that he was working the Parnell Commission, others speculated he was working the Ripper case. As you sometimes intimate, the truth could lie somewhere in-between. The simple fact is, we have very little knowledge of what he was up to, but obviously Dew’s comment supports the claim that it had something to do with the Ripper case. Feel free to disagree, but I am not inclined to write it off as “coincidence.” All the best.

[How Brown]

R.J.

Elsewhere,earlier,I gave my impressions about the interview you found given by Tumbelty in early 1889.

When you read this interview...did you or do you get the impression that Tumbelty desired the interview? Maybe even coveted it....?

Do you think,as I do, that Tumbelty comes off very over dramatic in how he recalls his "ordeal" at the hands of the 'orrible British police?

Do you think Tumbelty was ever concerned in the first place of being considered a viable suspect.....if in fact he ever really was?

Thank you sir.

P.S. Do you also think that he sounds really gay in how he delivers the interview? I sure do.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi RJ,
Thanks for your words!No worries.
Maybe we can try to find out who the florid faced detective was who marched up and down outside Mrs McNamara"s in New York.-or do you believe this was Andrews ?
Best
Natalie

[R.J.Palmer]

Howard -- I’m not sure what ‘very’ gay means; I reckon you’re asking whether I think Tumblety was a grand old queen. Yes, I do. And no, his outrage doesn’t strike me as genuine; I think he is hiding something. He’s behaving like a person that can’t be taken seriously, and that, to my mind, is a kind of defense mechanism. He doesn’t answer the charges against him in a serious way. Throughout his criminal career used the facade of the blustering and eccentric doctor to deflect whatever criminal mischief he was currently engaged in. He stuck with it because it worked. It’s still working.

Of course, gay men are not known for hating women. I can’t think of a more civilized bloke than E.M. Forster, for instance. But we are talking about the Victorian era and women were hated anyway. They were not second-class citizens; they were third or fourth-class beasts of burden. So a gay man looking with disdain on a charwoman was not out of the ordinary. There is not a huge amount of reliable information about the 19th Century homosexual underworld; most authors have centered on the Cleveland Street scandal. But because of the social conditions of the Victorian Age, and because it was a male controlled society, there does seem to have been a homosexual ‘clique’ that was rabidly misogynistic. J.K. Stephen would be the shining example. Some of the strange queens of Cambridge didn’t merely like men, they hated women. It’s an odd psychology, but, I think, a real one. But I realize this isn’t ‘politically correct.’

Natalie - No; it can’t be Andrews, who wasn’t yet in America. I think the only hope to getting to the bottom of it is if somewhere in London there are emissary papers referring to these events. But I also don’t think it should be taken as a matter of faith that the Special Branch papers will never be released.

[SirRobertAnderson]

But because of the social conditions of the Victorian Age, and because it was a male controlled society, there does seem to have been a homosexual ‘clique’ that was rabidly misogynistic. J.K. Stephen would be the shining example. Some of the strange queens of Cambridge didn’t merely like men, they hated women. It’s an odd psychology, but, I think, a real one. But I realize this isn’t ‘politically correct.’



Great post, R.J.

A question for you. Let's take as given, for the purposes of discussion, that Mr. T ("I pity the fool") was indeed the Ripper. Is there any point to considering that some Fenian angle would explain the crimes as opposed to misogyny ? I.e looking at the series as a form of terrorism and/or an effort to show the police as inept bunglers ?

As there is little new under the sun, I'm sorry if this has been proposed before, but I thought I'd lob it out there.

[Stan Russo]

RJ,

I think you made one brilliant point in your post that has rampant implications in the way many learned individuals see this case. Women were hated by almost all, whether it was direct and open or clandestine and thought normal.

The fact that JTR hated women is a given, but a given in a way that many people, IMHO, take to that umpteenth level of closed mindedness about who the murderer should be. Here's another question for you RJ, and forgive me if I don't already know the answer:

Are you advocating Tumblety as JTR?

Stan

[Natalie Severn]

I am not sure that such a generalised statement as" everybody hated women" is actually going to help us progress this case at all or even help us understand the attitudes of people to one another.
Its not true that "everybody" hated women.WB Yeats,the leading Victorian poet certainly didnt hate women, he spent his entire life in the thrall of his Irish Revolutionary muse Maud Gonne.There is no record either that William Morris "hated women",ditto dozens of other gay, male,female social reformers, writers , artists etc too numerous to relay that we come across as we explore this case.
It is however true to say that the prevailing ideology of the English Ruling class was above all " class" ridden and that such an ideology was pervasive in the literature and newspaper media of the time.But such ideology was oppressive towards any group of people that wasnt male,middle aged, upper or middle class and white.That was how society was organised .Almost everybody who had any say in how society was run or organised from the government down to the press barons fell into this category---except the Queen ofcourse. But working class or lower class men were just as reviled,and depicted exactly as only fit to be "beasts of burden" and such in several of the books by DH Lawrence for one,who describes them as being seen as "beasts of burden" by Lady Chatterley"s hubbie-seen in fact as no better than the pigs they kept.Lawrence himself in Sons and Lovers refers to his own father being treated as such by his aspiring middle class mother looking down on his dad as he went down the mines each day in Nottingham,and trying to ensure a better place in society for herself and her son.
So it was a little more comlex than just being,"everybody hating women".
By the way,even Tumblety didnt appear to have hated all women-----he clearly had a very soft spot for Mrs McNamara---and she for him!
Will return to my defence of Tumblety later:wave:

[Stan Russo]

Natalie,

It is a general statement of the overall opinion of men towards women. Compared to how women are viewed today, correctly viewed I might add, the overall outlook of women, in the minds of women, was very derogatory, even if HATE is a strong word.

I believe what he means is that that opinion of women was such that they were treated as so much less than they are even treated today, which is not as equal as they should be.

The next step in RJ's statement though is whether or not to work off that analysis, which I believe is true and use it to the benefit of the case.

When you state that Yeats was not a woman hater I can come back with, neither was John Stuart Mill, who actually advocated women's rights in the 1860's and 1870's. However, that was not the predominant tone of the time, and as a result, the searching for someone who "HATED" women appears to be more of an opinion oriented search rather than an intellectually derived investigative analyses.

Stan

[Natalie Severn]

Yes Stan,
I believe it was the case that many if not most, lower class women in Victorian Times were "doubly" oppressed,ie oppressed as belonging to the lower classes and therefore seen as inferior people to upper or middle class people and oppressed as of the subordinate sex and therefore seen as inferior to their menfolk.
However,its inaccurate to state that the upper and middle class women like Mrs Druitt, Lady Somerset, Maud Gonne for example were as oppressed as their lower class sisters,or even as lower class men.They had little in common as "women" with their "oppressed" sisters such as Mary Kelly , Catherine Eddowes and Annie Chapman and much more in common with the middle and upper class men of that time.They may not have had the vote but they had societies approval and respect as the wife of a surgeon in Mrs Druitt"s case,of a Lord in Lady Somerset"s case and as an independent,well educated upper class Irish woman in Maud Gonne"s case.
Same with the men involved in Cleveland Street.
Best
Natalie

[Dan Norder]

The contemporaries knew something else was going on, but they did not know what. Some speculated that he was working the Parnell Commission, others speculated he was working the Ripper case.

From the places he went, the people he was known to have met with, and all other evidence, it's clear he was working to try to gain support for the Parnell Commission. From the places he *didn't* go and the people he *didn't* meet with it's pretty clear that he was not trying to do anything related to Tumblety (except for going along with the US press speculations to try to cover up the fact that he was engaged in an improper and illegal politically-motivated investigation)... unless he was just very incompetent in looking for the guy.

[Caroline Morris]

Documentation recently recovered by Donald Rumbelow shows that Andrews was working with Swanson and Littlechild in October/Novemember, 1888---at the very moment these events were going on.

Clearly, Andrews was working a criminal investigation in America...which is entirely consistent with a background check on Tumblety.

RP

Hi RJ,

I'd be very interested to hear what you make of Littlechild's 'one more letter' on the ripper subject, which he chose to 'inflict' on Sims in 1913.

Do you believe he genuinely did not have the least clue that Tumblety had left Boulogne in good enough physical and mental shape to take him all the way to America?

Or might he have forgotten?

There doesn't seem to be any reason For Littlechild volunteering information about Tumblety in the first place if he felt obliged to hold back certain details. And yet the implication of Littlechild's words is that no word of any fruitful intelligence-gathering on the part of Andrews or anyone else, concerning Tumblety's post-Boulogne whereabouts and/or activities, ever reached his ears.

Why do you think he was out of the loop after November 1888, assuming you believe that's what he was?

Love,

Caz
X

[SirRobertAnderson]

Hi RJ,

I'd be very interested to hear what you make of Littlechild's 'one more letter' on the ripper subject, which he chose to 'inflict' on Sims in 1913.



This triggered a question in my mind, Caz. Does this 'one more letter' business open for discussion the very real possibility that Tumblety was not front of mind for Littlechild, or he'd have mentioned him in his very first letter ??

[Natalie Severn]

Mea culpa!I was trying to delete a mistake in my earlier post and deleted this one by mistake!
.....will return to correct mistake to morrow!
Natalie

[R.J.Palmer]

Caz - Hi. The fact is we don’t know and can only engage in reasonable speculation. I suspect that out there somewhere is an article Sims wrote in 1913; it caught Littlechild’s eye, and he wrote to Sims with a comment. We can make a very good educated guess at what Sims wrote back, based on the content of the Littlechild Letter. Clearly, it had something to do with Druitt (‘Dr. D’) and sexual insanity. Almost certainly it referred to the same information that made Macnaghten claim that Druitt was “sexually insane.” On the Henry Thaw thread AP Wolf writes:. “And basically I wondered why Littlechild had made reference to the Thaw case anyway? Hardly relevant to the discussion he was having." Ah, but how do we know that? In truth, we don’t know it was irrelevant, and we don’t know it is out of context, because we don't’ have access to Sim’s original letter... What if Sims had written something along the following lines? (Which I think is very likely):

“Chief Inspector, thank you ever so much for writing! I heard from Major Griffiths that a certain ‘Dr. D’ had been caught leaving Madame Red Cheek’s Flogging-House in Chelsea in October, 1888. It was rumored that he had flogged a boy so mercilessly that there was blood on his clothing! The family later tried to explain this away by saying that Dr. D was in surgery that afternoon; the police detained him briefly, but he escaped the charge when the boy could not be found. This same ‘Dr. D’ later turned up as a suspect in the Whitechapel Murder investigation, but drowned himself at the end of 1888. A report was submitted to the Home Office about it. Have you heard of this Dr. D? Is it not odd that murderers often resort to sexual cruelty? Yours, etc., G.R. Sims”

To which Littlechild responds:

“Dear Sir, I never heard of a Dr. D. but among the suspects was a Dr. T.....”etc.

He then goes on to a not-so-out-of-context discussion about Oscar Wilde, Harry Thaw, sadomasochism, and 'contrary instincts,’ etc. And in this sense, I get a different feel than Sir Robert. I think Tumblety was still there lingering in the back of Littlechild’s mind all those years; the very fact that he brings him up suggests this. Sims' reference to Druitt genuinely puzzled Littlechild and he brought up the one ‘Dr.’ that he knew of in regards to the Whitechapel Murders, and one that he thought was a ‘very likely’ suspect. So, no, I don’t find the letter unusual at all in that regard.

You comment: “There doesn't seem to be any reason For Littlechild volunteering information about Tumblety in the first place if he felt obliged to hold back certain details.”

In general, I agree with your thinking. No reason at all. But I don’t get a sense that Littlechild had any particular loyalty to Sir R. A., so he evidently didn’t mind letting a journalist know that the C.I.D. had let a suspect jump bail. It could even be argued that Littlechild was setting the record straight in that regard.

You write further: “The implication of Littlechild's words is that no word of any fruitful intelligence-gathering on the part of Andrews or anyone else, concerning Tumblety's post-Boulogne whereabouts and/or activities, ever reached his ears. Why do you think he was out of the loop after November 1888, assuming you believe that's what he was?"

I agree; it is puzzling. I understand your doubts. But it might be remembered that Andrews left Scotland Yard not long after his return to London, and Littlechild may have never quizzed him on the episode. And I don’t think the so-called ‘Anti-Tumbletyists’ can have it both ways. On one hand they state that Littlechild is ‘out of the loop,’ on the other, they exhibit astonishment that he doesn’t know Tumblety’s ultimate fate. I think of Littlechild in the same way Fido thinks of Dew. He is what he is. Many decades later, Dew recalled (wrongly) that the Bucks Row carman (Robert Paul) had never come forward during the Nichols investigation. We know that Paul, in fact, did come forward...but near the end of the inquest. Fido speculates that Dew is recalling the frustrating and futile search for Paul, but forgetting the fact that he was eventually found. So, too, with Littlechild, perhaps. Littlechild had a man in Boulogne. (Melville). 25 years on, he might be recalling having loaned his human bloodhound to trace the Ripper through the streets of Boulogne (Melville’s son, in fact, confirms that his father had worked the case) but forgot the fact that Tumblety eventually resurfaced in the U.S. two months later. This is not all that difficult to swallow, since you can now see that Tumblety didn’t pop up again until after Andrews left North America, and thus we can’t be certain that Andrews ever had any firsthand information about his whereabouts. My opinion? Here it is. If, in fact, Sir Robert Anderson came to suspect that he had botched the Tumblety investigation, I don’t think it would have been a topic that he would have particularly relished discussing with the other top brass at the Yard.

Stan asks: Are you advocating Tumblety as JTR?

I would prefer not to answer that. I will say this, though. I think it is ‘improper’ --or at least a mistake-- to look at any given suspect in isolation. I think is vital to see Druitt, Isenschmid, Ostrog, Kosminski, Tumblety, Pizer, and the murderer of Rose Mylett in the correct light, because they all play a vital role in the great mystery. And I'm only slightly exaggerating.

[Caroline Morris]

Hi RJ,

Many thanks for your detailed response. I don't have a problem with your interpretation of how the Littlechild/Sims correspondence may have begun and continued.



But it might be remembered that Andrews left Scotland Yard not long after his return to London, and Littlechild may have never quizzed him on the episode. And I don’t think the so-called ‘Anti-Tumbletyists’ can have it both ways. On one hand they state that Littlechild is ‘out of the loop,’ on the other, they exhibit astonishment that he doesn’t know Tumblety’s ultimate fate.

Wanting it both ways? With me it's merely a case of concluding that Littlechild must have been out of the loop after November 1888, concerning any remaining interest in, or further intelligence on Tumblety, because he made it clear in his letter to Sims that he didn't have a clue that Tumblety had made it back to America from Boulogne without a suicidal bone in his body.

Would this flamboyant self-publicist, if the ripper, have had a single suicidal thought after the glut of Miller's Court? And yet this is what Littlechild believed about Tumblety (just as Macnaghten believed it about the depressed Druitt), and it was surely a factor in his 'very likely' verdict. Tumblety's very survival punches a bit of a hole in Littlechild's ripper reasoning, which means that today's theorists have to reason somewhat differently if they want to retain ripe old Tumblety as a 'very likely' suspect.



Littlechild had a man in Boulogne. (Melville). 25 years on, he might be recalling having loaned his human bloodhound to trace the Ripper through the streets of Boulogne (Melville’s son, in fact, confirms that his father had worked the case) but forgot the fact that Tumblety eventually resurfaced in the U.S. two months later. This is not all that difficult to swallow, since you can now see that Tumblety didn’t pop up again until after Andrews left North America, and thus we can’t be certain that Andrews ever had any firsthand information about his whereabouts.

Are you sure you don't want it both ways?

You want Littlechild to recall having his man in Boulogne search for 'the Ripper' there, but to forget that 'the Ripper' (to keep your language consistent) had resurfaced in America, larger than life as usual, just two months later (which is hardly 'eventually' in ripper years) - and to replace this memory lapse with a reported belief that 'the Ripper' had not only disappeared without trace but had done away with himself.

That I do find a bit hard to swallow.

Love,

Caz
X

[Chris Phillips]

Would this flamboyant self-publicist, if the ripper, have had a single suicidal thought after the glut of Miller's Court? And yet this is what Littlechild believed about Tumblety (just as Macnaghten believed it about the depressed Druitt), and it was surely a factor in his 'very likely' verdict.

Except that, of course, if you look at what Littlechild actually wrote, it's clear that he's only reporting a past belief on the part of others that Tumblety committed suicide, and also that his evaluation of Tumblety as a suspect doesn't depend on that belief. Granted, he emphasises the fact that the murders stopped after Tumblety left the country, but that's quite different.

He shortly left Boulogne and was never heard of afterwards. It was believed he committed suicide but certain it is that from this time the 'Ripper' murders came to an end.
[my emphasis]

Chris Phillips

[Natalie Severn]

Hi RJ,
Now that the dust has settled a little I would like to discuss a few of the comments you made in an earlier post.

You stated that "sending inspectors to chase Fenians was not how they operated" Jenkinson and co worked "entrapment plots".

You are correct in that Jenkinson worked "entrapmment plots" although I am a little at a loss as to exactly who you refer to in your "and co".
There was no "and co".Jenkinson had been sacked in 1886.He had run an entirely separate Information service dirctly linked to the Home Office.He built a network of agents answerable only to him personally and he kept everything he did a closely guarded secret ,reputedly burning everything in "room 56" rather than letting his hated enemies, James Monro and later Robert Anderson ,have sight of it when he was sacked.

When Monro and later Anderson took over Special [Irish ]Branch work the two previously separate intelligence services were merged together and these Monro and Anderson,those two Chiefs of Police worked rather differently to Jenkinson.
It has to be remembered too that the Home office/Irish Special Branch and actually The Times itself,though it denied it vehemently,in the Autumn of 1888 were all working together to try to gather information to help them in their defence at The [Parnell] Special Commission.All had a number of detectives working on the case in America,one such agent ,for example was Kirby ,a Canadian detective in touch with Sheridan-see Fenian Fire pages 338 and 341 .

According to the New York Herald of December 23rd 1888,in a report from MONTREAL where Andrews is about to set sail for home, he appears to be admitting that he has ALSO been on business connected with the Parnelll Commission.Now its perfectly true that what he could have been doing was providing "misinformation" -deliberately.However,he is quoted as saying he had "not been looking after Fenians or Invincibles on his visit but had confined his attention to members of the National League[of Ireland] and had come by some evidence of an important character,but he thought that it would not affect the proceedings before the Parnell Commission to any great extent".He was also at pains to point out ,on this, the eve of his departure from America, [23rd December 1888] that "many of the men he had interviewed declined to become informers on their trusted leaders----".
Now,the New York Times on 23rd January 1889 quotes a Pinkerton detective on behalf of Pinkertons ,refuting Andrew"s above statements and BTW also an "Inspector Shore"s" who appears to have said the same thing to the press -ie statements to the effect that The Times were searching for evidence against Parnell.The Times then,through Pinkerton"s denied all knowledge of such doings!



So RJ, you have Pinkerton"s Detective Agency giving complete credence to your statement that ".......sending inspectors to chase Fenians" never ever happened........"ok RJ if you say so but remember it was The Times who paid the ruinous costs of the Special Commission.They paid out £250,000 the equivalent of £12 million today. And Robert Anderson nearly lost his pension in 1910 when he admitted writing that string of articles entitled "Parnellism and Crime" for The Times.
Best
Natalie

[Stan Russo]

RJ,

I'll give you that Tumblety is a major part of the Ripper mystery, but not as JTR?

That is just an analysis of the facts at hand coupled with the information we know from the Special Branch and eyewitness accounts.

Stan

[A.P. Wolf]

RJP
I'd like to know where you dug up a time span of over two weeks for Andrews stay in North America?
Most of the reports talk about a week, but I have seen one which states '10 days'.
As I think you know on the 'Inspector Andrews' thread I posted several reports which gave a clear indication of the date of his departure, arrival and subsequent departure from New York.
I also gave you the relevant sailings to and from Halifax, which did not match that data.
Are you ignoring this important information, RJP?

Natalie, I do wonder whether this comical and theatrical 'detective', marching up and down outside Tumblety's lodgings in New York, was in fact Stan's much vaunted 'Special Branch' officer who accompanied Tumblety over on the Bretagne?
If it was, then no wonder the Fenians were so successful at murder and mayhem.

As there is another thread for discussion on the Littlechild letter I'll discuss the points raised here there.

[Caroline Morris]

Except that, of course, if you look at what Littlechild actually wrote, it's clear that he's only reporting a past belief on the part of others that Tumblety committed suicide, and also that his evaluation of Tumblety as a suspect doesn't depend on that belief. Granted, he emphasises the fact that the murders stopped after Tumblety left the country, but that's quite different.

He shortly left Boulogne and was never heard of afterwards. It was believed he committed suicide but certain it is that from this time the 'Ripper' murders came to an end.
[my emphasis]

Chris Phillips

Except that, of course, if you look at what I actually wrote, Chris, it's clear that I did refer to the suicide issue as:

…a reported belief that 'the Ripper' had not only disappeared without trace but had done away with himself.

It's also clear that I wasn't arguing that Littlechild depended on the suicide belief for his 'very likely' verdict. But mentioning this belief in the letter he 'inflicted' on Sims makes no sense if it played no part whatsoever in his reasoning, and worse, it would also be very misleading if he personally rejected suicide as a likely explanation, either for Tumblety's supposed disappearance or for the murders stopping.

Look again at his unqualified statement from 1913 that Tumblety 'was never heard of' again, after leaving Boulogne some twenty-five years previously. How could he not have been considering suicide a likely option as he wrote those words? And by extension, how could he not have reasoned that self-destruction was a likely path for such a murderer to have taken, following the events of that terrible autumn?

Love,

Caz
X

[Chris Phillips]

Except that, of course, if you look at what I actually wrote, Chris, ...

I was responding to the part of your message I quoted, where you said "this [suicide] is what Littlechild believed about Tumblety", and the other part where you said "Tumblety's very survival punches a bit of a hole in Littlechild's ripper reasoning ...".

I think it's clear from what Littlechild wrote that it was Tumblety's departure from the scene that he considered significant, not the possibility that he had committed suicide.

I'm not denying Littlechild considered it possible that Tumblety had killed himself, but that isn't what you were arguing, is it?

Chris Phillips

[Stan Russo]

AP,

I am not sure who the officer was that followed Tumblety across the Atlantic, but it could have been Sweeney or any of a number of other officers keeping tabs on him. There is a report which states that Tumblety confided himself to his state room on the Bretagne. The person who made that claim, whose name escapes me right now, also stated that there was an officer aboard that may have been the cause of Tumblety's self imposed seclusion.

I have read Fenian Fire, but awhile ago. I cannot remember exactly who the "clownish" detecive was that you are speaking of but once again we may be entering an area where you require more documentation than the secret organization is willing to provide to verify what appears to be a basic premise, that Tumblety was under the watch of the Special Branch and followed in the hopes of leading them to something or someone.

Stan

[Caroline Morris]

I was responding to the part of your message I quoted, where you said "this [suicide] is what Littlechild believed about Tumblety", and the other part where you said "Tumblety's very survival punches a bit of a hole in Littlechild's ripper reasoning ...".

I think it's clear from what Littlechild wrote that it was Tumblety's departure from the scene that he considered significant, not the possibility that he had committed suicide.

I'm not denying Littlechild considered it possible that Tumblety had killed himself, but that isn't what you were arguing, is it?

Chris Phillips

No, you can't infer that from what Littlechild wrote. You are taking his certainty about Tumblety's departure from the scene (a fact), and his certainty that there were no more ripper murders after his departure (an opinion), and comparing this with his less than certain idea of the man's ultimate fate (a reported belief), to determine what 'facts' he would or would not consider significant if they could be ascertained.

This is not logical. He could have thought suicide would be a highly significant factor, much more so than simple flight, if he thought the reported belief could be correct. Just because Macnaghten couldn't be certain that Druitt was 'sexually insane', the allegation would not have been any less significant in his mind than the certainty that his suspect had ended up in the Thames.

Of course I should have said that Littlechild believed Tumblety may have committed suicide. I didn't intend to imply this was the only possible option for him, but I did think this would be clear from the rest of my original post.

I'll try to be even clearer next time. But my arguments are actually based on Littlechild's belief that the ripper may have killed himself after the last murder and that Tumblety was a 'very likely' ripper suspect.

Love,

Caz
X

[Natalie Severn]

AP,
I reckon it could have been--I see Stan too seems to see such a scenario.
I must admit I have wondered whether Tumblety,while not only a possible JtR or someone who they thought knew something about JtR, was simply in this instance a kind of decoy.They certainly gave this peculiar detective and his comical act a very high profile-so they must have wanted everyone to know Tumblety was being "watched".Maybe,if it was desired that
Tumblety looked to be the main focus of their attention,then the hard graft of getting Millen to agree to testify and Sheraton too,at the hugely more important [to them] matter of the Special Commission,then perhaps arranging for this Charlie Chaplin type "sleuth "performance outside Tumbelty"s New York address was exactly the antidote needed.After all the New York Herald for one seems to have been onto them over busily digging up dirt on Parnell etc-----heaven help them if it became common knowledge of exactly what they were up to.Whereas if they could just get everyone to think they were just after Tumblety as a JtR suspect everybody would ignore the other stuff they were attending to.
Best
Natalie

[Stan Russo]

Natalie,

A decoy ... or even a patsy.

Stan

[Chris Phillips]

I'll try to be even clearer next time. But my arguments are actually based on Littlechild's belief that the ripper may have killed himself after the last murder and that Tumblety was a 'very likely' ripper suspect.

I suppose it's some kind of progress that you're now talking in terms of "he could have thought ..."

The point is that you haven't shown us any evidence at all that the possibility of Tumblety's suicide was a significant influence on Littlechild's opinion of Tumblety as a "very likely" suspect. Your latest implication (if I understand correctly) that he had independently concluded that the Ripper was likely to have killed himself, and that he would therefore view favourably a suspect who was believed to have committed suicide, is sheer speculation.

I'm afraid this is just a rather transparent exercise in attributing a straw man argument to Littlechild - "Tumblety was a very likely suspect because he was believed to have committed suicide" - so that it can be knocked down by the rather well known fact that he didn't commit suicide.

But Littlechild didn't say that, and you haven't shown us any evidence that he believed it.

Chris Phillips

[R.J.Palmer]

Caz - I certainly agree 100% with Chris Phillips. Even before Chris posted, I began to formulate the following response to your comment. It’s utterly superfluous now, but I’ll post it anyway:

“Tumblety's very survival punches a bit of a hole in Littlechild's ripper reasoning...”

With respect, no it doesn’t. That’s your reasoning--and you certainly don’t know that Littlechild shared it. In fact, he implicitly admits that he doesn’t know precisely what happened to Tumblety so it would be the height of illogic to demand that his suspicions were contingent on a demise that he could not confirm. In my view, the only reason Littlechild even mentioned such speculations is that Sims had brought it up in relation to his own unknown ‘Dr. D’ and the reference puzzled Littlechild, who had never heard of the Druitt theory and was groping for an answer to who the heck Sims was talking about (Littlechild quit Scotland Yard at the beginning of 1893--possibly before the ‘private information’ had reached MM) Indeed, Litltechild’s doubts about Dr. T’s demise, is all the more reason to assume that his suspicions were based on something else--something prior to FT’s flight. Littlechild nowhere states (as Macnaghten does) that the murderer’s mind would necessarily have given way leading him to top himself. Your are transferring Macnaghten’s speculations to Littlechild. And as for Macnghaten, I’ve never been convinced that that was the whole of his reason for his suspecting Druitt. It was merely one factor. There must have been more, and indeed, he states there was more. RP

AP -- To be fantastically blunt, I’m becoming less & less willing to discuss the matter. You began to lose me back when you misstated British Law to support your speculations about who was or wasn’t in custody on Nov. 9th, and lost me further when you began to imply that the Littlechild Letter is a forgery. I prefer to play by the rules. I’ve known for years --as have many people -- Andrews’ arrival date in Halifax. You have never posted his departure date--it is unknown. What you posted was speculation based on your puzzling assumption that Andrews was escorting Barnett to New York and necessarily had to return to London by way of Halifax. There’s no reason to make either assumption. Others here even claimed that he never went to New York to begin with. So I’ll simply say to you what you said to Vanderlinden (or was it Norder?) some months ago, when we were discussing Klosowski: give me the exact ship and the exact passenger list and the exact departure date with Andrews’ name on it. The rest is “pants.” And the last I heard, Dec 9th to Dec 20th is twelve days inclusive. That puts him in Montreal and headed south. Are you going to sit there and tell me you know how long he was in New York? Based on what?

Natalie - Thank you. Yes, I am aware that ‘Jinks’ was out by 1886. I used him as an example of procedure because his methods --thanks to Christie Campbell--are better documented than most. As for Monro and Anderson, my view is that they were even more insular than Jenkinson. Jenkinson’s whole schtick was to stir up as much trouble as he could and then swoop down and arrest everyone; Monro’s philosophy was to keep an eye on the ports and chemist shops and squelch conspiracies before they could bloom. With all due respect, I think you’re doing the same thing others are doing. You are connecting dots that are not connected. As you note, the Times Commission was not funded by the government, it was funded by The Times. Read Campbell's footnotes carefully and cross reference them. The agents they used in the U.S. were uniformly private detectives and ex-Scotland Yard men. Kirby actually works against you in this regard. As much as everyone wishes to cry ‘foul!” there is no credible evidence whatsoever that Anderson or Monro used active Scotland Yard men to aid the Times; it would have been political suicide, and it was a line that was not crossed. I tried to point this out to certain parties a year or more ago, and was called a misinformed liar, so you’ll understand my hesitancy to get back into it. And bleedin’ heck, my great grandfather was an Irishman, I read Yeats and J.M. Synge with the best of ‘em, and can’t be accused of being a Tory! Best wishes. RP

PS. My congratulations to Chris Phillips and Rob House for their continued work. The last two years have seen some fascinating developments on the Kosminski front. I’m now volunatarily withdrawing from this conversation since, like many ‘Ripperologists’, I can’t seem to discuss it without cracking my back molars.

[A.P. Wolf]

RJP
you claimed in an earlier post that Inspector Andrews was in North America from '2 - 4 weeks', but you do know really that he arrived on the 10th December 1888 and then left for England again on the 23rd December 1888.
You know that don't you?
13 days, RJP, do not make '2 - 4 weeks'.

[Natalie Severn]

You know RJ, you really should practise what you preach.One minute you tell us we must use our creative thinking-or words to that effect,like Martin Fido did when he needed to fill gaps in evidence[see your previous posts to myself on this thread]----the next we should be scrutinising footnotes and crossing every "i' and every "t"!
Anyway,with specific regard as to whether or not there was overlap,collusion,liaison whatever you would like to call it between CID,The Home Office,The Irish Special Branch,The Times etc in October 1888 Campbell tells us of a civil servant named Joyce,from Dublin Castle who was seconded to the Irish Office in London to turn police reports into witness supoenas for The Times."On his account he worked through Major Nicholas Gosselin,[Head of Secret Dept. between 1888-1901] "who had cognizance of many strange goings on behind the scenes and was in touch with Mr Soames,The Times solicitor".
Joyce"s account after meeting with Robert Anderson and James Monro,was highly illiuminating- I quote: [Joyce] The whole system as revealed to me turned out,if not ahuge fraud,most certainly a gigantic farce".
That liaison did exist between The Home Office, the Special Irish Branch and The Times is borne out by the statements of Joyce who should have known as he saw these files and there are numbers of allusionsto it in the pages of Fenian Fire.
An interesting illustration of " liaison", can be found between pages 286 and 287 of FF ,where Inspector Littlechild,CID, writes a report for Monro who in turn wrote his account of same for the Home Secretary"s attention.It concerns a confession made by Thomas Callan ,a convicted dynamiter,in Chatham Jail in 1888 which Littlechild obtained himself.It was kept top secret.But following Robert Anderson"s "confessions" in early April 1910 at his open newspaper conference at Linden Gardens where he admited to making up stories about Parnell in letters to the Times etc, -an Irish MP, Jeremiah McVeagh ,asked the following question in Parliamentary Question Time:
" Had an Inspector Littlechild of the CID interviewed a convicted dynamiter in prison to collect evidence for The Times?"
Well ,the answer was "NO" -ofcourse-and Callan"s confession is not in the 1891 Littlechild file.But,covering letters show that Robert Anderson took charge of it. [footnote FF page 287].
The truth is RJ ,that as Joyce remarked after collating his above file ,many strange things went on behind the scenes in 1888.

Best
Natalie

[Caroline Morris]

I'm afraid this is just a rather transparent exercise in attributing a straw man argument to Littlechild - "Tumblety was a very likely suspect because he was believed to have committed suicide" - so that it can be knocked down by the rather well known fact that he didn't commit suicide.

But Littlechild didn't say that, and you haven't shown us any evidence that he believed it.

Chris Phillips



In my view, the only reason Littlechild even mentioned such speculations is that Sims had brought it up in relation to his own unknown ‘Dr. D’ and the reference puzzled Littlechild, who had never heard of the Druitt theory and was groping for an answer to who the heck Sims was talking about (Littlechild quit Scotland Yard at the beginning of 1893--possibly before the ‘private information’ had reached MM) Indeed, Litltechild’s doubts about Dr. T’s demise, is all the more reason to assume that his suspicions were based on something else--something prior to FT’s flight. Littlechild nowhere states (as Macnaghten does) that the murderer’s mind would necessarily have given way leading him to top himself. Your are transferring Macnaghten’s speculations to Littlechild. And as for Macnghaten, I’ve never been convinced that that was the whole of his reason for his suspecting Druitt. It was merely one factor. There must have been more, and indeed, he states there was more. RP



Dear Sirs,

Please do me the courtesy of indicating where I argued that Littlechild depended on Tumblety having committed suicide for his ‘very likely’ verdict, or even that it had to be a major factor in his reasoning. It may not have made any difference to him either way, but you don’t know that any more than I do. At the very least, his introduction of the possibility (the only one he offers regarding the suspect's fate) is evidence that he fully embraced the idea of a suicidal ripper. It made sense to him. Who knows whether it would have made equal sense to him, had he come to learn all that is now known about Tumblety’s life after 1888? It may not have affected his reasoning one jot, but you cannot know that.

I agree entirely with you RJ, that Littlechild was moved to mention his Tumblety speculations when Sims brought up Dr D. In fact I posted as much earlier on the Thaw thread, before reading your latest post here. I would go further and suggest that Littlechild was trying to reconcile whatever Sims had said about this Dr D, with his own knowledge of Dr T, and was wondering if they were not in fact thinking of the same individual (T ‘sounds much like D’). It would explain Littlechild’s observations about the suicide belief and a whole lot more, if Sims had also said that his Dr D had committed suicide and was alleged to have been sexually insane.

I'm not trying to transfer Macnaghten's speculations to Littlechild. But I do see Littlechild looking at his own hymn sheet for comparisons with the one Sims was singing from.

Is there a sexually insane suicidal doctor in the house? Dr B anyone?

Love,

Caz
X

[Chris Phillips]

Please do me the courtesy of indicating where I argued that Littlechild depended on Tumblety having committed suicide for his ‘very likely’ verdict, or even that it had to be a major factor in his reasoning.

I don't have time to play word games over this, but here's what you wrote again:
Tumblety's very survival punches a bit of a hole in Littlechild's ripper reasoning, which means that today's theorists have to reason somewhat differently if they want to retain ripe old Tumblety as a 'very likely' suspect.

Clearly that implies that Littlechild's opinion of Tumblety as a suspect did depend, at least in part, on a belief that Tumblety might have committed suicide - that this was a significant factor in his reasoning. Otherwise there would be no "hole" and no cause to revise that reasoning.

It may not have made any difference to him either way, but you don’t know that any more than I do.
...
It may not have affected his reasoning one jot, but you cannot know that.

But you were the one asserting that it did make a difference! Now you say we can't know whether it did or not.

If that means you've gone from "Tumblety's very survival punches a bit of a hole in Littlechild's ripper reasoning" to "We cannot know whether the fact of Tumblety's survival would have made any difference to Littlechild's opinion", then that's fine.

Chris Phillips

[A.P. Wolf]

I was awondering what RJP and Stan would make of the following report from the 'Milwaukee Sentinel' of the 11th September 1898 where it states 'klip und klar' that 'ordinary Scotland Yard officers are dealing with extradition proceedings whilst the Secret Service are dealing with anarchists' and the like.
Now if Inspector Andrews was Special Branch, Secret Service or even secret squirrel, then what the devil was he doing dealing with 'extradition proceedings'?
The job of 'ordinary officers'.

http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac287/HowieNina/smart1.jpg

[Joe Chetcuti]

Post #35 had a cool ending. It has been a few years now, but we still haven't made much progress on learning additional news about Scotland Yard Detective H.L. Reeves. I remember that Reeves' name didn't surface in the Metropolitan Police Records stored at Kew. Nats kindly checked into that for us a couple of years ago. Reeves' Irish comment about the Whitechapel case appeared in the Missouri newspapers, and it was also sent out-of-state to one place that I know of. It made its way down to John Paul Bocock country in the Atlanta Constitution. I found it in the Nov 23, 1888 issue.

Nats, here is a little something about the Reeves/Bocock connection concerning Irish matters: Bocock was known for writing a piece entitled "The Irish Conquest of our Cities." I plan on looking up this material and reading it. It apparently dealt with how the Irish were getting elected into political office in American cities during the 19th century. It sounded like anti-Irish sentiments were being conveyed, but I should read the material first before commenting.

I can see how Reeves' bold Irish comment that he made during the Autumn of Terror would end up in the hands of Bocock at the Atlanta Constitution. Bocock was also the only journalist who printed the entire Ripper interview Colonel Hughes-Hallett's gave to the New York World. HH was a stern anti-Home Rule Parliament Member who drew the ire of the Irish Brigade and the English Radicals. The Colonel's words sure found a home with Bocock. HH, Reeves, & Bocock seemed to have similar beliefs toward the Irish.

Nats, you mentioned you went down to the Colindale newspaper library. The next time you plan on going there, can you let old Joe know? Thanks! There is an item in the St. Stephens Review that you will like to read.

[R.J.Palmer]

"I was awondering what RJP and Stan would make of the following report...."

And RJP is wondering why you are addressing this to him, AP. You seem to be confused. I've consistantly stated that there is no evidence that Andrews worked for the Special Branch. So take up your beef with Norder, Natalie, Vanderlinden, etc., who all seem to believe he was hunting down Fenians for the Parnell Commission. I'm perfectly happy with Andrews working standard criminal and extradition cases--- which is what I've been saying all along. Regards, RP.

PS. If I recall, a month ago you were arguing that a man couldn't be extradited for gross indecency. Whose extradition is worrying your dreams these days? RP

[Natalie Severn]

Thats a very fine find AP...very fine,so thankyou and......Congratulations!
I see it refers to Inspector Jarvis who was quoted by Inspector Andrews in the New York Herald of 23rd December as being one of the detectives from Scotland Yard with whom he had just attended a conference in Niagara,at which he infers Irish matters were on the agenda.
Now Inspector Jarvis of CID was the detective who was involved in the
American Trunk affair.The trunk was found in Mitre Square in 1885 where an American dynamitard was staying named Burton. Burton and his co dynamitard Cunningham got Life for their various offences connected with terrorism at the time.
Returning to Jarvis himself.Questions were in fact addressed to Mr Matthews in the House of Commons in March 1890 as to "whether Inspector Jarvis had ever gone into business at Sheridan"s ranch"He is referring in fact to Patrick Sheridan, "Invincible on the run"---code name Henry--- who The Times badly wanted for their evidence.Apparently Canadian private detective,Kirby, was the man keeping a close eye on Sheridan for the Times, via Pinkertons, but.....according to Joyce- FF page 338- Kirby had received a file on him from the reluctant civil servant, Joyce.
But it is looking very likely that Inspector Jarvis was also involved in lending a hand in obtaining evidence for the Parnell Commission.
Mathews ofcourse denied everything----- but communications between the British authorities and their agents were intercepted by supporters of Parnell who apparently had sight of them.



Joe,thanks---no sighting yet of Reeves but will keep a watch! Wont be going to Colindale yet but will keep you posted.Email me if its urgent.

Best
Natalie

[Chris G.]

No, you can't infer that from what Littlechild wrote. You are taking his certainty about Tumblety's departure from the scene (a fact), and his certainty that there were no more ripper murders after his departure (an opinion), and comparing this with his less than certain idea of the man's ultimate fate (a reported belief), to determine what 'facts' he would or would not consider significant if they could be ascertained.

This is not logical. He could have thought suicide would be a highly significant factor, much more so than simple flight, if he thought the reported belief could be correct. Just because Macnaghten couldn't be certain that Druitt was 'sexually insane', the allegation would not have been any less significant in his mind than the certainty that his suspect had ended up in the Thames.

Of course I should have said that Littlechild believed Tumblety may have committed suicide. I didn't intend to imply this was the only possible option for him, but I did think this would be clear from the rest of my original post.

I'll try to be even clearer next time. But my arguments are actually based on Littlechild's belief that the ripper may have killed himself after the last murder and that Tumblety was a 'very likely' ripper suspect.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz

I also don't think that you can infer that Littlechild thought Tumblety had killed himself. It was probably obvious to him from that sizeable file on Tumblety at Scotland Yard that Dr. T was a very slippery character, apt to disappear and keep himself hidden, and that's exactly what happened. I don't know if there is any proof that Tumblety crossed the Atlantic again after 1888 -- perhaps Joe knows -- but my guess is that he didn't risk it for the very reason that he would not want to come into clutches of Scotland Yard. And yet that didn't prevent him, contrarily, publishing his 1889 pamphlet or appearing in the U.S. press over the jewelry theft at Hot Springs, etc. It does seem that the good doctor kept a lower profile after 1888 than he did beforehand. But I think the overriding thought in Littlechild's mind in saying Tumblety was never heard of again was that the murders had stopped -- and he wanted to convey to Sims that the escape of the suspect was significant for that reason.

Chris

[Stan Russo]

AP,

I'm not sure what to say to you. Nothing I will ever say will make you change your mind. All I know is that Inspector Walter Andrews has been reported as a Special Branch officer by more than one source. It is impossible to prove that he wasn't, since once again, you cannot prove a negative. He could have been working cases for both departments or he may not have been Special Branch at all.

YOU ARE MISSING THE DAMN POINT!

What does Walter Dew lying about Andrews, whom he clearly states was seconded to Whitechapel on the morning of the Nichols murder with Abberline and Moore, get for him (Dew)? Why would lying about Walter Andrews, specifically, boost Walter Dew's ego?

Also, while I believe Andrews was a Special Branch officer, for the very same reasons that you are fighting with your last breath to "prove" that he wasn't, what does that have to do with the Special Branch's belief that Tumblety was connected to the murders?

Pull all the news clippings you want. Pull the one where Queen Victoria eats her figgy pudding and says "oh my". That will not change the fact that Tumblety was believed to have been involved in the JTR murders, by the Special Branch, and that will also not change the fact that you either can't understand that or refuse to admit it due to your own theories on the case.

Stan

[Caroline Morris]

Hi Chris (George),

To be fair, even Chris Phillips doesn't dispute that Littlechild believed it was possible that Tumblety had committed suicide.

Maybe Littlechild mentioned the belief for fun, not really believing it himself for a second.

Maybe he only mentioned it because Sims may have mentioned that his Dr D had committed suicide, and Littlechild wondered if they had the same (supposedly sexually insane) doctor in mind, since he had never heard of a Dr D in connection with the murders.

I don't know.

But it was the only possibility Littlechild offered to explain how Tumblety had apparently disappeared off the face of the earth after leaving Boulogne, never to be heard of again (which he certainly did believe to be the case).

We make of that what we will.

Love,

Caz
X

[Stan Russo]

Or, a deductive analysis can be made of that as well.

Stan

[A.P. Wolf]

Stan
I think the 'damn point', as you put it, is that apart from Dew's single and dubious refererence there is not a shred or jot of evidence to suggest that Inspector Andrews played any sort of role in the Whitechapel Murders.
Yes, it is entirely possible that a 'Special Irish Branch' officer could also be involved in the Whitechapel Murders as a simple CID officer, as Abberline was... but this my dear chap is a matter of well recorded fact.
However I don't believe it is possible to find Abberline involved in extradition proceedings, as Andrews was; and as the report I just posted clearly demonstrates it would be very unlikely to find a 'Special Irish Branch' officer working an extradition case.
Which of course Inspector Andrews was doing throughout the latter half of 1888.
I'd describe that as a 'fine point', Stan.

[Stan Russo]

AP,

Then answer the question I have asked numerous times:

What benefit does Dew receive by lying about Walter Andrews coming with Abberline and Moore to work the Whitechapel investigation?

Answer that correctly and the conversation will be over.

I think we both know that you cannot, other than speculating that Dew was a liar, even though lying about Andrews, whom you claim was not a Special Branch officer and therefore a "simple CID" officer, gets Dew nothing, other than the possibility of being called a liar if it were not true.

I know that you will keep bringing up the fact that there is no documentation on Andrews working the case, other than Dew, who got Abberline and Moore correct, a fact that you always seem to disregard. You'll also say that he worked cases not under the "Special Irish Branch" jurisdiction, without understanding that the duties of the Special Branch had changed since Monro took over and Jenkinson had left or understanding the fact that Monro ran both the Special Branch and the CID, therefore an officer could work for both units interchangeably without the required documentation for covert investigations that you seek.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and trust you to answer that simple question about Dew. Let's see if my trust is warranted.

Stan

[A.P. Wolf]

I certainly agree with you, Stan, that Dew had nothing material to gain by lying about anything in regard to the Whitechapel Murders, but ego is a powerful tool and device, and when Dew wrote his memoirs he was the most famous policeman in the world, and part of him wanted so much to be involved in the greatest murder case of the time, and so by proxy he reinvented history and threw Andrews in as a useful prop.
Authors do this sort of stuff all the time.
As you know.

[Stan Russo]

AP,

I will give you that often times, too many to be sure, authors embellish their involvement in their own life. However, my problem lies with him identifying Abberline and Moore, both of whom were Special Branch, with Andrews.

It is not that I have ever had any secret documents stating Andrews was Special Branch, but it has been a justified assumption based upon Dew's information, which checks out in connection to Abberline and Moore.

When I refer to the "damn point", that also includes the notion that even if Andrews was not Special Branch, which I still disagree with, that does not change the goings on of the Special Branch with regards to Tumblety.

I believe that in trying to relieve Andrews of any Special Branch duties, this will somehow disconnect Tumblety from the status of "very likely" suspect.

I agree with you that he is not a good suspect, however, he WAS A suspect, and that suspecthood of his ties the Special Branch into the JTR investigation, along with those who were gathering data and or informants for the Parnell Commission, which is also connected to the other two.

Stan

[A.P. Wolf]

Thanks Stan
I'm pleased that we can agree about something.
So the only thing that stands in our way of complete agreement is that pesky Littlechild letter, isn't it?
For if you take away the Littlechild letter then Tumblety as a suspect sort of falls down on his nose... or do I mean knife?
As you are aware I deal with that issue elsewhere.
And trust me, I will deal with it.

[Stan Russo]

AP,

With all due respect, I'm amazed that you cannot see the point here. Regardless of Andrews having been a Special Branch officer, a CID officer or used in combination of those two groups, both run at the time by Monro and Anderson (both Special Branch); regardless of the Littlechild Letter's origin or authenticity, Tumblety is still a bad suspect but still a suspect of the Special Branch / JTR investigators nonetheless.

The reasons why, IMHO, are the key to the entire case.

I still feel that you are ignoring the step forward to eliminate a ground step that doesn't impact the overall case.

Stan

[A.P. Wolf]

I think a case is attempting to be made here that Scotland Yard interest in Tumblety whilst in London was an indication of his complicity or involvement in either the Whitechapel Murders or some other Fenian related issue.
I don't believe that to be the case at all; and that it was in fact quite common for all Irishmen returning from the USA to be shadowed by Scotland Yard for the entire time that they spent in England, as the following report from the 'Milwaukee Daily Journal' of August 16th 1887 shows:

http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac287/HowieNina/irish1-1.jpg

[Stan Russo]

Wow,

Simply to eliminate Tumblety from the realm of status as a suspect, you now state that ALL Irishmen were shadowed across the pond by Scotland Yard.

You must really have some stake in this, getting rid of Tumblety I mean. I'm eager to see why.

Stan

[A.P. Wolf]

No such great drama here, Stan.
I'm just sweeping up the mess in the shop after a long, hard day.
I like to keep things neat and tidy.

[Bob Hinton]

Can somebody help me out here. I have worked my way through this thread and have found several references to Inspector Andrews being with Special Branch. What is this assertion based on?

[A.P. Wolf]

Tullamore Dew is the answer to your question, Bob.
Drink a bottle of that and you'll see special branch everywhere.

[Stan Russo]

The argument that Andrews was Special Branch does emanate from numerous sources. However, due to the fact that the Special Branch was an anti-terrorist group, there is not the documentation AP desires or needs in order to believe it as a fact.

There is also the understanding, which AP refuses to acknowledge, that since the Special Branch and the CID were both run by the same man, James Monro, that certain officers were interchangeable within those two divisions. While Andrews worked on cases that technically may not have been Special Branch jurisdiction, they were under the real of the CID, which was also run by Monro.

The argument that Andrews could not have ever worked in any Special Branch capacity is not only a flawed one, but also agenda driven and one that will always escape those who lack vision. In addition, Andrews' being a Special Branch officer has no bearing on the Tumblety suspecthood whatsoever, a fact that also seems to elude the person taking up the charge to "clear" Andrews' name from even remotely being connected with the Special Branch.

Stan

[A.P. Wolf]

Stan, I'll go through my thoughts again, because there does appear to be part of the message that you are not receiving.
I do not believe that Inspector Andrews played a substantive investigative role in the Whitechapel Murders; and there is certainly a dearth of evidence to support that contention, apart from the single reference from Dew.
To back up my belief I have posted news reports of the cases that Inspector Andrews was working at the time of the Whitechapel Murders; and these are all fraud cases associated with extradition proceedings.
I then produced a contemporary news report which stated that 'Special Branch' officers would never be involved in extradition proceedings.
Based on factual accounts of the time I reached the conclusion that Inspector Andrews was not a Special Branch officer, and was not involved in the Whitechapel Murders.
The very second that someone produces a report from the time indicating otherwise I will reconsider that conclusion, but I will not reconsider that conclusion based on modern opinion.

[Stan Russo]

AP,

So once we produce the documented report that Andrews was secretly working for the Special Branch on secret cases involving secret activities linked to anti-terrorism, you will be happy?

Stan

[A.P. Wolf]

Well we seem to be able to do that with every other Special Branch officer from 1888 apart from Andrews... so yes, Stan.

[Stan Russo]

Okay, please provide the documentation that Sir Robert Anderson was a Special Branch officer in 1888. Here's the trick, there is none, but he was. For extra credit, find the absolute documentation that Anderson wrote and/or contributed to the 1887 Times articles lying about Charles Parnell. Here's another trick, there is none, but he did.

Things aren't always so black and white, especially with a counter terrorist organization. To say that they revealed everything about their group's activities would be borderline retarded and also meant the person who said it did not truly understand the nature of the Special Branch, and therefore the intracacies of the case, as the two were most definately intertwined. That can be acknowledged by anyone who can look past their own previously conceived notions about the murders.

Stan

[A.P. Wolf]

Oh come now, Stan, even you must know that the Special Irish Branch in the 1880's operated under a strictly pre-emptive code of conduct and behaviour as dictated by the government of the day. A certain amount of covert operation was required at the start of any investigation but then, as can be seen in the Paris sting where the Fenian's mail - concerning the importation of infernal devices into England had been intercepted - the Special Branch officers marched up to the front door of the Fenians, announced who they were and strongly advised the Fenians not to carry out their dastardly plans as they had been rumbled.
The Fenians fled back to New York and there were no arrests made.
The Special Irish Branch wanted the Fenians to know who their officers were; and they did, which is why everytime one of them took ship to the USA it was loudly proclaimed through the American press long before the Special Branch officers arrived.
You make the Special Branch of 1888 sound like MI5 today, this they were not, for the most part they were a bunch of bumbling and inoffensive middle class prats who were incapable of routine or normal police work so were sent off to Paris or New York to hunt Fenians. There were exceptions, but not many.
The only deep cover tactics employed by Special Branch in the 1880's was the used of paid and planted informers, who were all private individuals unconnected to Scotland Yard or the Home Office.
Everyone knew who the Special Branch officers were, and what they did. The officers were often depicted by the likes of Punch and Co.
The British and American press didn't think Inspector Andrews was a Special Branch officer; the Fenians didn't; Scotland Yard didn't... and I certainly do not.

[Stan Russo]

As another poster stated previously, you will never see the light at the end of the tunnel. All your current work is nothing more than an effort to increase the stagnancy of the case.

Your attempts at proving Andrews was not Special Branch, a task that you can only show might have been the case, even though you still don't understand the nature of the Special Branch, which was like MI6 in a way, having an intracate spy network and stopping numerous dynamite attempts, literally does nothing for the case. If anything, your efforts actually hurt the case in the same manner that occurred when early theorists refused to take advantage of interviewing the people who were there at the time of the murders in favor of creating more mystique for the case.

There is no purpose that serves this case with specific regards to Andrews police affiliation. You are engaged in a hunt that leads to no forward conclusion. This is why I have said and will always know that your motives are driven by some agenda. and why discussing topics with you, as many have discovered, is an exercise in futility.

For your next crusade, maybe try going after those who feel that Liz Stride was a prostitute. There are some out there and even if you can show she wasn't, through some form of documentation that never explains why she was out talking to numerous men on the night of her murder, it still doesn't change a thing for this series of unsolved murders. Even if you choose to go after those who say she was not a prostitute, the end result of your next crusade will still produce no spoils, aside from assisting you with your own notions on the case.

This shall be my last response to you because I have wasted way to much time discussing the case with someone who not only refuses to see past his own eyes, but also revels in that fact, perhaps believing that no one sees what he is trying to accomnplish.

Stan

[A.P. Wolf]

Stan, yes, you are quite right, I do have vested interest here, and that is quite simply the correct reportage of history, without opinion or any other form of influence.

[Natalie Severn]

AP,
Both sides were complicit in the dynamite business.It was Patrick Casey,who invented dynamite plots [1884/5].He was named by "Scotland Yard source" as prime plotter versus Queen on Jubilee eve.Later offered to appear for the defence at the Special Commission and reveal all.Offered large sum by the Times .
Spy in" British Service" according to Davitt.[Fenian Fire].
There was also the"agent provocateur" ,James McDermott [Red Jim].He was on Jenkinson"s agent provocateur payroll from 1882 onwards.Late in the Special Commission"s proceedings ,Henry Labouchere urged Davitt to track down and supoena Red Jim McDermott and expose his bogus bomb plots.
He operated in New York, Dublin, Cork,[next county to Limerick], Paris and London.
I have wondered if it was McDermott who was playing the "detective" outside Tumblety"s house in New York--- only because he was a double agent and his description tallied with that of the comical detective who was seen outside:Red whiskers,bright red face- looked a bit of a clown.
Best
Natalie

[How Brown]

Not to exacerbate anything between my friends ( A.P. and Stan)...but:

Stan does have a good point about policing agencies never disclosing the identities of their operatives.

[Natalie Severn]

Yes,that may be quite true,How and Stan but as you know I have quoted from Fenian fire on a number of occasions and Christy Campbell has done a great deal of historical detective work,revealing the names of many of those on all sides who were involved in "the Troubles"/Special Branch/CID/Parliament /IRB etc.He also has pieced together and exposed a variety of intrigue,both personal and political-all of it scrupulously researched.Much of it has come from relatively recently released documents from Home Office files and other sources .Amongst that revealed is how British agents bought the services of Irish American Clan men , counter terrorism operations that penetrated the Irish Revolutionary movement and IRB agents penetrating British Intelligence etc.
It is here I confess to having looked for Tumblety,so far to no avail and we still dont know the code names numbers of them them had on either side of the divide-some had several.But certainly what you will find in its pages are names of a number of Fenians,Clan men,Secret Service men,CID /agents provocateurs etc etc .
Best
Natalie

[A.P. Wolf]

How, of course I'm prepared to accept the fact that Special Branch employed operatives who were very deep cover indeed, but these always were private individuals with no official association to government or policing authorities.
When we look at the high profile career of Abberline for instance, we look at a doyen of the press... the Dynamite plots and explosions, the Whitechapel Murders, the Cleveland Street Scandal etc and etc.
Who didn't know Abberline and his connection to the Special Irish Branch?
But when we look at Inspector Andrews we look at a normal police officer working fraud and extradition cases.
Nobody knew Inspector Andrews in the same manner as they knew Abberline or the other high profile Special Branch officers.

[A.P. Wolf]

'It has been said among other things that the assassin is an American, because he wears a slouch hat. If so ghastly a series of tragedies may be said to possess an element of humour, it is in imputating the crimes to an American for the reason specified.'

And so said the Brooklyn Daily Eagle on November 10th 1888, and over 100 years later I still think them to be right.
It all came down to a slouch hat.

[R.J.Palmer]

Yes, AP, and I think that shows that Tumblety followed the press coverage of the Whitechapel murders very closely indeed. Or do you write it off as a 'coincidence' that he used precisely that same excuse roughly two and a half months later, when describing the reason for his own arrest? Your pecking all around the shell, old man, and never getting down to the yolk.

[Caroline Morris]

Hi AP, RJ,

There in plain sight in the corner she saw two hatboxes standing one atop the other. She opened the top hatbox and saw a man's slouch hat, crown up, brim down. She lifted the hat and found beneath it a little blue wooden box. In it were several small bottles...

Now, in the lower hatbox, she found a tall silk hat, brim up, crown down. Lying in the crown of the hat was a small hat brush, and standing in the crown was a tumbler containing liquid. A piece of linen was soaking in the liquid.

Hmmm... very suspicious, these slouch hats. ;)

Love,

Caz
X

[A.P. Wolf]

I thought actually, RJP, it was a classic example of how the same words, terms and expressions could turn up in unrelated documents quite by chance... something you seem keen to deny elsewhere but get right down and cosy with here when it concerns Tumblety.
I know I was taken to task for using a quote from the Croydon Advertiser but the Boston Daily Eagle in Whitechapel?
Get outta 'ere!