Orsam Books

Fake Orders, Fake Discovery

Mike Hawley seems to be obsessively determined to get an article published about Tumblety in every single issue of Ripperologist, however bad that article might be.  Every issue we seem to get a new one, each worse than the last.  But he must surely have reached the nadir in Ripperologist 166 with his article entitled 'Inspector Andrews' Orders to New York City, December 1888'.  It is full of false statements, not the least of which being the one claiming that it is based on a discovery which has 'just' been made.

In the second paragraph of his article, after saying that the claim that Inspector Andrews went to North America to investigate the Whitechapel murders (specifically to investigate Tumblety), as argued by R.J. Palmer, 'received pushback' (by which he means pushback from me), Hawley states this (page 11):

'A discovery has just been made that not only refutes the extradition-only assertion, but also corroborates Palmer's conclusion'.

Great, you might think, a new discovery.  One only 'just' made.  This is exciting.  What is that discovery?  Well, the way his article is drafted, the casual reader might think that the new discovery is an article in the New York World of 21 December 1888 in which it is stated of Andrews that:

'...since his arrival he has received orders from England....a commission, in connection with two other Scotland Yard men, to find the murderer in America.' 

There is, however, nothing new about that one which was quoted in my Suckered! Trilogy back in June 2015 and was well known prior to that. 

No, the supposedly new discovery is an article in the Ottawa Daily Citizen of 21 December 1888 in which Inspector Andrews is quoted as saying in Montreal on 20 December that, having been given a full description of the murderer by someone in Toronto, 'I quite expect a similar experience in New York'

This is not a new discovery. That article, which was first published in The Montreal Daily Witness of 20 December 1888, was reproduced by me in its entirety in my article entitled 'Hawley's Howlers', published on 25 May 2019, which can be found here

I reproduce it again below:


Other newspaper reports of what Andrews said refer to the 23 detectives but this is the only one which mentions the conversation the inspector supposedly had with a man in Toronto to whom he suggested he should go to London and 'secure the $75,000 now offered as a reward'.  Is there any reason to doubt that Inspector Andrews said this?  I would say that there certainly is.  As at 20 December, a reward had been offered by Samuel Montagu M.P, of £100 while the City of London had also offered a further reward of £500 for information leading to the capture of the Whitechapel murderer.  That totals £600.  With there being approximately 5 Canadian (and U.S.) dollars to the pound in 1888, the sterling equivalent of $75,000 at the time would have been roughly £15,000.

So did Inspector Andrews, really confuse a reward totalling £600 at most then being offered in London with a reward totalling £15,000?  Or was this an invention by the reporter for the Montreal Daily Witness who had no idea of the true value of the reward being offered in London?   The latter seems most likely, which then puts the veracity of the statement about Andrews expecting a similar experience in New York. Perhaps the reporter simply assumed that Andrews was going to New York and invented this part of the interview. 

Let's just look at the chronology of events regarding  Andrews' travel as reported in the newspapers:

On 19 December 1888, the Toronto Daily Mail, reported from Toronto:

'Inspector Andrews, of Scotland Yard, left last night for Europe.'

It went on to imply that he would be soon be back in London.  So that newspaper, at least, had no doubt of what his intention was and where he was travelling to.  This throws into huge doubt Hawley's absurd suggestion that Andrews had received a commission on 9 or 10 December to go and interview Tumblety in New York.

Now, at some point on 20 December, some reporters were evidently under the impression that Andrews was stopping off in New York.  The Montreal Gazette, 20 December 1888, for example, reported:

'Inspector Andrews, of Scotland Yard, London, who brought Barnett to Toronto called at the Central Police station yesterday and was shown round the city by Detective Robinson.  Inspector Andrews will leave for England via New York to-morrow [Friday 21 December].'

The belief that Andrews was going to New York, or rather 'via New York' (which is a different matter), seems to have excited the correspondent for the New York World into thinking that the detective had received orders, or a commission, to hunt for Jack the Ripper in that city.  Don't forget that this was sixteen days after there had been huge speculation in the New York press that Jack the Ripper, in the form of Tumblety, had arrived in New York.  It was also at a time when it was believed that two other officers from Scotland Yard (Jarvis and Shore) were roaming around the United States for no clear purpose. I have no doubt that the press put two and two together to make five at this point.

Regarding the New York World 'Special' story from Montreal of Tuesday, 20 December, (published on 21 December), which Hawley opened his article with, stating that Andrews had left that night for New York, it is important to note that the same newspaper completely abandoned that stance two days later when it reported a further 'Special' story from Montreal on Thursday 22 December which said that:

'Inspector Andrews of Scotland Yard...was going to Halifax, there to take the steamer on Monday for England'.

So, from a supposedly exclusive story of the inspector having been ordered to go to New York (and having left for that city) under a commission to find the murderer in America, the New York World two days later appears to have backtracked entirely, now accepting that he was on his way to Halifax to catch a steamer for England. The big story about him going to New York to find the murderer was simply abandoned and forgotten!

Why did the newspaper's reporter think he was going to take the steamer'on Monday'?  Possibly it was due to this report in the Montreal Daily Star of 22 December 1888 which was headlined 'Returned to England'

'Inspector Andrews, of Scotland Yard, who brought Roland Gideon Barnett to Canada, left for Halifax Thursday evening [20 December].  He returns to England by steamer 'Sarnia" next Monday'. 

Now you can see that the words 'next Monday' are somewhat ambiguous here.  Does he actually return to England next Monday or does the steamer leave next Monday?  Well, we know for a fact, as I demonstrated in Reconstructing Jack, that the Sarnia departed from Halifax on Saturday, 22 December.  It was due to arrive in England on Monday, 31 December, i.e. as of 22 December, not this Monday coming but next Monday. So, my interpretation of what the Montreal Daily Star was saying was that he would be leaving TODAY to return to England on Monday, 31 December.

Like I say, though, it's ambiguous and I imagine that another reporter reading the New York World story that Andrews was going to 'take the steamer on Monday for England' (but being unaware of the Montreal Daily Star story that he was returning on the Sarnia) would have concluded that he was, therefore, intending to take the Peruvian, which did depart from Halifax for England on Monday, and that is probably how that particular legend was born.

The notion that Andrews came back on the Peruvian made its way into the Boston Globe on 23 December, was picked up by the always gullible Simon Wood and then taken on by a grateful Mike Hawley because it seemed to give Inspector Andrews a bit of extra time to hunt for Tumblety in New York before returning home.  However, the Montreal Daily Star article was then discovered by me which makes it perfectly clear that it was the Sarnia that Andrews was headed for.

Now, Hawley likes to keep his options open as to whether Andrews did, in fact, go to New York following his press conference on 20 December.  In a confusing passage of his article he says, 'Andrews may have cancelled his New York City trip given the whereabouts of Tumblety on December 20 1888'.  But, as Hawley has to concede, Tumblety had 'vanished' on 5 December.  So why, four or five days later, would Andrews have been commissioned to interview someone whose whereabouts was unknown, only to have the commission cancelled ten or eleven days later when absolutely nothing had changed?

The evidence from the newspapers is that Andrews left Montreal in the early hours of Friday, 21 December.  Would he really have travelled to New York in a 370 mile journey, which must have taken the best part of nine hours in 1888, and then embarked on a near 600 mile journey from New York to Halifax in time to catch the Sarnia?  If Hawley can show it was physically possible to do it by producing a rail timetable for the period then I wouldn't say it was impossible but I would have thought it would have been more sensible, not to mention quicker, to travel from Montreal to Levis from where a train service ran straight to Halifax.  I can't say for sure he didn't go via New York, although I very much doubt it, but what I feel I can say with certainty is that, if Andrews went to Halifax via New York, it would have been no more than a through visit in order to catch a connecting train to his actual destination.

We know for 100% certain that Inspector Andrews did not actually pay a visit to New York for any purpose.  This comes from a document that killed Hawley when I first produced it in 2015 and he has spent the last five years frantically trying to find a way around it.  This document, from a Home Office file at the National Archives, is an official handwritten briefing note by Robert Anderson for the Home Secretary, Henry Matthews, dated 17 March 1890 in which Anderson states:

'Andrews was not in the United States at all' 

That's as clear as sparkling crystal.  Here was the Assistant Commissioner briefing his ultimate superior at the Home Office in preparation for the Home Secretary's appearance before Parliament to answer questions about police activity in the United States.  He certainly wasn't going to be feeding him false information about operational matters.  Inspector Andrews did not go to the United States at all, and that's the end of it.

Now Hawley desperately tries to undermine this (on page 13) by referring to the fact that, on 21 March 1889, Henry Matthews, in the House of Commons, 'admitted that Police Inspector Andrews had visited America'.

For some strange reason, Hawley appears to think that this contradicts Anderson's denial that Andrews was never in the United States.  It does not.  America and the United States are two different things.  Hawley must surely know that in the nineteenth century (as at other times but especially the nineteenth century), a reference to America could include both the United States and Canada.  

I already made this exact point in respect of Simon Wood in 2016 in 'Reconstructing Jack' when I wrote that:

'Wood must know that a reference to 'America' in the nineteenth century could include Canada so that when Anderson said that Jarvis was in America, it was no way inconsistent with his claim that no Scotland Yard officers were in the United States at that time. Indeed, on page 49 of his book, Wood quotes Timothy Healy asking the Home Secretary if Inspector Andrews had 'visited America' since the passing of the Special Commission Act and the Home Secretary answered in the affirmative.  Clearly the Home Secretary was not confirming that Andrews had visited the United States.  'America' here was taken to include Canada.'

I shouldn't need to prove this but, for an 1888 example, one finds in the Times of 14 December 1888 a letter to the editor from  James Caird in which it is stated that:

'The total foreign supply [of wheat] in each 11 months was a little over 67 million cwt.  America (including Canada and Chili), in 1887 gave us 49 millions of this, but in 1886 only 29 millions...'

This is an extract from the proceedings of the Proceedings of the American Transit Association from 1892:

You can see that the speaker (Colonel A. A. Stephenson) says: 'But you will bear in mind that America includes the Dominion of Canada...'.

This is an extract from the Sessional Papers of the Dominion of Canada from 1891:

You can see that it says, 'Since the name "America," includes Canada, United States, Mexico, Brazil and several other countries...'.

I could give loads more examples but, really, the difference between 'America' and the 'United States' is basic schoolboy stuff and shouldn't need to have to be demonstrated.   What's so amazing is that in a different context (page 3), when considering Logan's claim that Andrews had been sent to America, Hawley DOES note the distinction between America and the United States!!!!

Hawley's attack on Anderson's briefing note fails in its entirety.  Inspector Andrews did visit America, as the Home Secretary said. He went to Toronto in Canada which was part of America. But it was not part of the United States.  Andrews did not go to the United States.

Hence when Hawley writes in his Ripperologist article that: 'Barrat must claim that Anderson's boss lied' he is talking out of his posterior, also commonly known as his arse. Barrat must do no such thing and Barrat does no such thing. 

I might also add (although I don't know why I'm bothering) that Hawley is quite wrong to suggest that, when Anderson informed the Home Secretary about Andrews not having been in the United States, he was 'commenting upon Andrews' supposed visits from Toronto to Detroit and Niagara Falls before he made his way to Montreal on December 19, 1888'.  This is quite false and a typical Hawley howler.   The Home Secretary wasn't being asked about anything to do with the American press stories regarding Andrews' alleged visits to Detroit and Niagara Falls and, consequently, Anderson wasn't briefing him about that.  The questions being asked of the Home Secretary in March 1890 related solely to the allegation that Inspector Jarvis had been in Kansas City between 20 and 25 December 1888; in other words, bang in the very period in which Inspector Andrews is supposed to have gone from Montreal to New York!!!  In fact, in his first briefing note to the Home of 17 March 1890, but not mentioned by Hawley, Anderson wrote as clear as day:

'And at the date specified in this statement (Dec 20th-25th) there was no English police officer within the United States.'

It was only by way of clarification that Anderson wrote a further briefing note later the same day in which he informed that Home Secretary, so that there could be no confusion, that while Inspector Andrews had been 'across the Atlantic' at the time, in order to take an extradition prisoner to Canada, 'he was not in the United States at all'.

That is not only a statement that Andrews was never in the United States - so that it's literally impossible for Hawley to try and argue that he wasn't referring to the period after 20 December - but it was in the context of the issue of whether any officers were in the United States in the period between 20th and 25th December so that there can be no doubt whatsoever that Anderson was unequivocally saying to the Home Secretary, for the Home Secretary to inform the House of Commons and, indeed, via the press, the entire nation, that Inspector Andrews was NOT in that country in the precise period that Hawley is attempting to argue that he was travelling to New York!!

For Hawley, the situation, based on official records, is utterly hopeless.

And let's just remind ourselves of Hawley's ludicrous claim at the start of his article:

'A discovery has just been made that not only refutes the extradition-only assertion, but also corroborates Palmer's conclusion.'

But we've just seen that Anderson wrote to the Home Secretary in an official document in the clearest possible terms that the reason for Andrews' journey across the Atlantic was that he had 'taken an extradition prisoner to Canada'.  He didn't say that, hey, when he finished that job, as you will recall, he popped over to New York to try and interview Jack the Ripper!!!   Had any such thing occurred, the Home Secretary would have already known all about it, only needing reminding.  It was an extradition job.  That's in black and white in a document written at the highest possible level and with the highest degree of accuracy in order to be read to Parliament!!!  There just cannot possibly be any mistake whereas with newspaper reports, oh boy, yes there can not only be mistakes but also fabrications. 

Talking of which...

The story from the Daily Telegraph of 31 December 1888 (of which Hawley curiously quotes from the Eastern Morning News version of it dated 2 January 1889, even though I personally sent him the Daily Telegraph article back in 2015) that Andrews had arrived in New York is patently wrong.  And one can see that the source of the story is definitely the New York World article from 21 December because the Daily Telegraph correspondent wrote:

'Inspector Andrews, of Scotland-yard, has arrived in New York, from Montreal.  It is generally believed that he has received orders from England to commence his search in this city for the Whitechapel murderer.  Mr Andrews is reported to have said that there are half a dozen English detectives, two clerks, and one inspector employed in America in the same chase.'

We know that the New York World reported on 21 December that Andrews had 'received orders from England', so that's a clear copy, but the giveaway that this is nothing more than lazy, plagiaristic journalism from someone who was probably writing from his comfortable New York home is the reference to 'half a dozen English detectives, two clerks and one inspector employed in America' in the chase for the Whitechapel murderer.  Andrews had not said that at all.  He had said that there were 23 detectives, two clerks and one inspector employed in London working on the case.  What had obviously confused the lazy Daily Telegraph correspondent is that the New York World of 21 December also reported that Andrews said that Scotland Yard had 'half a dozen' men working in America  So the confused Telegraph correspondent merged the two sets of figures and erroneously came up with these 6 detectives, two clerks and an inspector all supposedly working in America.  The idea that this pretty useless correspondent somehow managed to get exclusive information that Andrews had arrived in New York without apparently knowing anything else about his arrival, or reporting anything more about it, is laughable.  He just assumed he had arrived in the city based on the New York World having said he was on his way, and that's all there is to it.

Even Hawley is forced to say of the Daily Telegraph piece that, 'none of the information in this article is new, and all of it originated in the first New York World article' and, to the extent that I can understand him, he even accepts that one should be sceptical about it. 

I don't really need to say any more because I have already demonstrated conclusively that Hawley has discovered nothing that corroborates R.J. Palmer's theory that Andrews was on a mission to do some kind of 'background check' or research into Tumblety (but not, in fact, to interview him as Hawley now suggests based on the press cutting that I discovered, because that was never what R.J. Palmer said). But there are a few other issues from Hawley's article that I would like to deal with.

The first relates to Guy Logan's claim in his 1928 book that, 'Inspector Andrews was sent specially to America in December 1888, in search of the Whitechapel fiend'.

Now, even Hawley must accept that, even on his best interpretation of the facts, this statement is entirely wrong.  Even he is not claiming that Andrews was sent specially to America in search of the Whitechapel murderer. At best, he is now saying that he diverted to New York to interview Tumblety after having been sent on an extradition mission to Toronto, although he fully concedes that Andrews may only have planned to do this but cancelled that plan so that he never, in fact, did anything of the sort.  That being so, I just can't see how on any level he feels able to write that 'everything in Logan's comment was true'.  I mean, if as Hawley, accepts, Andrews didn't even go to New York as he had planned, how can it have been true to say that he was sent to America specially in search of the Whitechapel fiend? And even if he did go to New York, how does Hawley's new claim that he just wanted to interview Tumblety corroborate the claim that he was going to 'search' for the murderer?

But, it doesn't matter, because we have seen from Anderson's clear statement that Andrews was never in the United States so that means that he wasn't sent specially to America in search of the Whitechapel fiend, nor did he go there to attempt to interview Tumblety. 

Amongst all Hawley's nonsense the thing that I found most baffling was this statement (page 17):

'On his website David Barrat makes a claim – without stating any evidence – that Logan had  weak connections and his source was most likely Chief Inspector Walter Dew, who was a junior detective during the murders'

The fact of the matter that I said no such thing.  I never used the word 'weak' nor the word 'connections' when discussing Logan - so that it follows that I never claimed that Logan had 'weak connections' - and, in fact, I never said a single word about Guy Logan's connections!

Hawley has either imagined it or fabricated it.  I can't say which. But he really should not be attributing words to me, in a Ripperologist article, that I have never used. It is, in fact, disgraceful: being both unfair to me and insulting to all the readers of Ripperologist who, I am quire sure, expect articles published in that magazine to be honest, truthful and accurate to the best of the author's ability.

I also never said in the reference provided by Hawley that Walter Dew was most likely to have been Logan's source.  Hawley has also imagined this.

Amazingly, Hawley then tries to argue against something I haven't said by pointing to the fact that 'Logan authority' Jan Bondeson 'does not characterize Logan as having weak Scotland Yard connections as Barrat does' (page 18). Yet - and this is even more amazing - Hawley doesn't cite a single Scotland Yard connection Bondeson says that Logan had!!!  All he does is cite Bondenson as saying that Logan moved in the same circles as George R. Sims.  Hawley then refers to the fact that Sims knew Macnaghten.  Well great, but I don't think that Logan was moving in the same circles as Macnaghten when he wrote his 1928 book, unless he went to a lot of seances, because Macnaghten had died six years earlier, and wasn't even in the Metropolitan Police force when Andrews went to Canada in 1888.

So we can, I think, effectively rule out Macnaghten as Logan's source.  We can also rule out Anderson who died in 1918 and Walter Andrews himself who died in 1899.  In fact, all the key players were dead by 1928.  So, as far as I am concerned, and have always been concerned, Logan could have had some great connections in Scotland Yard in 1928, and indeed he probably did, but none of them had any first hand information as to what Andrews was up to in America in 1888 and they would all have been junior officers at best at the time.  

After having falsely claimed that I said on this website that Logan had 'weak connections' Hawley, as we have seen, then goes on to say that I claimed that:

'his source was most likely Chief Inspector Walter Dew, who was a junior detective during the murders' 

But, as I've already stated, I never said this either!!!  

What I actually said in 'The Third Man' was:

'the idea of Andrews hunting the Whitechapel murderer in North America made its way into British newspapers at the end of the year and is very likely to have been what influenced Guy Logan, either directly or indirectly, into believing that Inspector Andrews had been sent to America to chase the Whitechapel murderer when he wrote his book some forty years later.'

Thus, it was the story in the newspapers which I thought was 'very likely' to have influenced Guy Logan but they could have been newspapers that he read himself or newspapers that someone else had read and informed him about.

Then, in my article 'The English Detective, which Hawley does NOT cite as a source in his Ripperologist article, I wrote this:

'If we then picture the writer Guy Logan speaking in 1928 to someone like Walter Dew who was a junior officer back in 1888 but now in a senior position (a former Chief Inspector in Dew's case), confidently passing on the same news that he had heard about Inspector Andrews thirty years earlier, we can understand why Logan might have written 'I know that one of Scotland Yard's best men, Inspector Andrews, was sent specially in America in December 1888, in search of the Whitechapel fiend'.  For reasons of politeness, bearing in mind that few people enjoy having their statements questioned, he is unlikely to have asked his source exactly how he knew such a thing, assuming that, as he had been a serving police officer, it would be accurate information.'  

So I was doing no more than offering Walter Dew as a possible source for Logan by way of example as to how such a transmission of information could have occurred.  It seems to make sense.  Dew wrongly believed when he wrote his own book a few years later that Andrews was on the Ripper team and I theorized that this could have been because, when he was a detective constable at the time of the Ripper murders, he was aware from the newspapers, or from canteen talk, that Andrews had gone to America and had put two and two together to make five, thinking it was a chase across the Atlantic for Jack the Ripper.  Dew is one obvious suspect but frankly it could have been anyone at Scotland Yard who passed on this titbit of false information to Logan.  My point was that, coming from someone at Scotland Yard, especially someone senior in the 1920s, Logan would have thought it was reliable, but we know for a fact that it wasn't.  We've seen the briefing note of Robert Anderson.  There is no doubt that Andrews went to Toronto on an extradition mission.  There can also be no doubt, from the newspaper reports, that he returned to London almost immediately after that mission was concluded.  He never went to the United States.  He did nothing relating to the Ripper murders!!!

Having established that, and put the entire issue firmly and finally to bed, I might as well record the rest of Hawley's howlers from his article 

The first is this:

'There was certainly a Scotland Yard detective reported to have been in New York City and there because of the Whitechapel murders case'.

Well no, there wasn't.  Not in any actual news reports anyway.  The only purported news reports that referred to a detective in New York city referred to an 'English detective'.  Hawley has to rely on the San Francisco Examiner of 16 December 1888 to support the notion that the man was a Scotland Yard detective.  But how could a San Francisco journalist know more than the New York reporters on this topic?  The answer is that he couldn't and he was, of course, doing no more than making an assumption based on the New York reports.  The same is true of the Cincinnati Enquirer which Hawley also relies on (although that newspaper doesn't say that the English detective outside Tumblety's house was from Scotland Yard but writes of a fantasy that Tumblety was followed across the Atlantic by 'Scotland Yard's men').  All based on the probably fictional stories from the New York papers.   They cannot be called reports.  They are comments only, without any source or reason to think that they might be accurate.

But the more interesting thing about the above quote of Hawley is that it has no real meaning.  What Hawley really wanted to say was that 'There certainly was a Scotland Yard detective in New York City'.  But he knows he can't say that so he writes, 'There certainly was a Scotland  Yard detective reported to have been in New York City' , which is a transparent attempt to give the same impression. Even if it was correct that a Scotland Yard detective was 'reported' to have been in New York City, the word 'certainly' is inappropriate here.  Why didn't he just say:  'A Scotland Yard detective was reported to have been in New York City'?  I'll tell you why.  The 'certainly' adds to the impression that such a detective really was there.

Hawley knows I have strongly challenged this but he skips over that, as usual.

And let's face it, the notion of there being a Scotland Yard detective in New York in the first week December 1888 is wholly inconsistent with Hawley's theory that Andrews was being sent to New York on 20 December.  If a Scotland Yard detective was already in New York prowling around outside Tumblety's apartment buildings, why did they need another one?  What was Inspector Andrews going to add?  Why couldn't the detective who was already there and who, on Hawley's account, had urgently and expressly sailed across the Atlantic on the very trail of Tumblety, not have interviewed the man, if that was what Scotland Yard wanted to do?  It doesn't make any sense and never will. 

To my astonishment, Hawley repeats the mistake he has made time and time again and which I have corrected time and time again. Thus he says (page 16):

'The grand jury returned a true bill on November 19, 1888, meaning the prosecution’s case against Tumblety was so solid that it convinced the jurors to send the case up to Central Criminal Court.'

That is, of course, false.  A grand jury true bill meant nothing more than that the prosecution, in a case that had already been sent to the Central Criminal Court by a magistrate, had established a prima facie case.  This was exactly the same prima facie case that had been established at the hearing before the magistrate at the Police Court. It was an antiquated formality which allowed the case to proceed to trial.  No-one in their right mind who knows anything about legal procedure from the nineteenth century would say that a grand jury true bill meant that a case was 'so solid'.  It's utterly ridiculous.

Other Hawley howlers:

'In fact, there is evidence that Andrews left Montreal for Halifax and quickly boarded the SS Sarnia, disembarking on December 22 1888 for England.' (page 12) 

To disembark, according to the dictionary, means to 'leave a ship, aircraft, or train'.  According to Hawley, it seems to mean 'to set sail'.  Or perhaps he thinks that Andrews boarded the Sarnia only to jump off it and swim all the way to England!

Reminds me of when I was on the Forum and Hawley didn't seem the understand the meaning of the word 'unprecedented'. (see the 'The Suckered! Trilogy' thread on Casebook, posts #442, 445 and 456). Isn't he supposed to be an educated man?

On Page 13, Hawley says of Anderson: 

'In his memoirs in 1910, he finally admitted that he secretly authored the “Parnellism and Crime” articles, so Anderson had an incentive to be deceitful in this 1889 letter that contradicted Matthews.'

Anderson did not author the 'Parnellism and Crime' articles.  He authored three articles entitled 'Behind the Scenes in America' which were a small part of the ten articles within the 'Parnellism and Crime' Series. The famous 'Parnellism and Crime' articles were authored by John Woulfe Flanagan.  The fact that Anderson authored the three 'Behind the Scenes in America' articles in 1887, before he joined the Metropolitan Police force, gave him no possible incentive to be deceitful to the Home Secretary in 1890.  In fact, I have literally no idea what Hawley means by that.

I also don't know what the '1889 letter that contradicted Matthews' is supposed to be (page 14).  I can only assume that Hawley is referring to Anderson's briefing note of 1890.  In which case, he must seem to think that Anderson was telling the Home Secretary he was wrong to have stated in Parliament a year earlier that Andrews had travelled to America in 1888.  I mean, it's just so absurd. Of course Andrews travelled to America in 1888!!!  And that information would have come from Anderson himself!

Hawley has edited down the Home Secretary's answer in any case.  What he said in answer to a question from Timothy Healy was that Andrews had been in America AND that his visit there had not been connected with the Parnell Commission, something which we know is perfectly true.  The idea expressed by Hawley, who doesn't seem to understand the political context, that 'Anderson's anger must have been festering for a full year' at the Home Secretary's statement that Andrews had been in America (page 13) is laughable.  Where does he think that Matthews got his information in the first place?   As I've already said, it would have been Anderson who informed the Home Secretary that Andrews had been to America (Canada) in order for the Home Secretary to make that statement.   A statement which was, it needs to be repeated, both entirely true and in accord with what Anderson told the Home Secretary in 1890.   

There was no anger, there was no festering. 

I suppose you have to admire Hawley's optimism though.  Especially this sentence (on page 17):

'If Tumblety had been found between December 5 and December 20, an extended visit to New York may very well have in order. Actually, this may still have happened. Andrews’ name on any return trip has yet to be found.'

One has to say that, boy, it would have been pretty amazing for Andrews have made an 'extended visit' to New York between 5 December and 20 December bearing in mind that he didn't arrive in Canada until 9 December, then went directly to Toronto, appearing before the magistrate on 11 December and then appeared before the same magistrate at the committal hearing on 17 December. 

That Hawley really does seem to nurture the fantasy that Andrews might have made a wholly unreported round train trip of hundreds of miles to New York between the two Toronto court hearings on some kind of unspecified wild goose chase in the middle of winter, thus creating a risk of missing the committal hearing, which could mean that Barnett walked free from custody, shows the desperate straits to which his argument has fallen.  If he is hoping that Inspector Andrews' name is going to turn up on a return trip to New York he is going to have a really long wait.

Then we have this:

'Andrews himself was quoted by the New York World correspondent discussing finding the murderer in America when he stated that half a dozen American detective agencies “have offered to find the murderer on salaries and payment of expenses. But we can do that ourselves, you know.” American detective agencies, such as the Pinkerton Detective Agency, would only have been referring to a search in America, especially since the question to Andrews was about the Whitechapel murders investigation in America.” Andrews commenting that Scotland Yard officials “can do that ourselves,” means Scotland Yard detectives were searching in America.'

Even if you take the report from this dodgy reporter - the same one who tells us that Andrews had 'orders' to go to New York - at face value and assume it's an accurate transcription, it doesn't in any way support Hawley's interpretation that 'Scotland Yard detectives were searching in America'

There are two ways of reading the supposed exchange between the reporter and Andrews. 

The first is that the reporter asked Andrews how many men Scotland Yard had working in America to which Andrews replied 'half a dozen' and then went on to refer to an unspecified number of detective agencies which had offered to find the murderer on salaries and payment of expenses.  

The second is that the reporter asked Andrews how many men Scotland Yard had working in America but Andrews ignored the question and failed to answer it, saying instead that, half a dozen detective agencies had offered to find the murderer on salaries and payment of expenses (but their offer had been refused). 

Hawley plumps for the second interpretation on the basis that, when the reporter (who had obviously plumped for the first interpretation) asked Andrews if he (Andrews) was one of the half a dozen Scotland Yard men working in America, Andrews said:

"No, my boy; don't say anything about that.  I meant detective agencies"

So Hawley thinks that Andrews was correcting the reporter who had misunderstood him.  He didn't, in other words, mean to say that there were half a dozen Scotland Yard men working in America, only that half a dozen detective agencies had approached Scotland Yard to find the murderer.  While this interpretation certainly has the benefit of some kind of accuracy, because there certainly were NOT six Scotland Yard officers working in America in 1888, and Andrews would never have said such a thing, it does mean, if correct, that Andrews simply ignored the question as to how many Scotland Yard officers were working an America and answered a different question which he hadn't even been asked, which would be a bit odd.

If we were to assume that Andrews DID say that there were half a dozen men working for Scotland Yard in America, his subsequent statement that, 'I meant detective agencies' would then make sense if what he was saying was that Scotland Yard had six men from detective agencies, such as Pinkertons, working in America at the time.  We know that Scotland Yard relied on Pinkertons to carry out investigative work in America, and assist with extraditions, so it's quite possible that, if correctly reported, Andrews was, indeed, saying that.  It would make sense of the questions and answers.  Thus, in answer to the question 'how many men do you have working in America?' he said six and then, when he was asked if he was one of those six, he said no, he didn't mean six Scotland Yard men he meant six detectives from American private detective agencies.

Obviously, if that is the case, it destroys Hawley's claim that 'Scotland Yard detectives were searching in America' because it means that Andrews was only ever talking about private detectives operating in America. 

Now, let's assume that Hawley's interpretation is the correct one and that Andrews said only that half a dozen American detective agencies had offered to find the murderer.  If that's the case, it can surely only mean that those American detective agencies had offered to come to London to find the murderer thinking that they were better than the stupid London police.   I mean, Andrews can't possibly be saying that he had been approached by six American detective agencies requesting salaries and expenses to conduct investigations in America to find the killer of women in the East End of London can he?  That would be bizarre and absurd.  Only someone obsessed with the notion that Tumblety was the murderer could even think that was possible. 

Perhaps Hawley thinks that Andrews was saying that Scotland Yard had been approached by six American detective agencies to find Tumblety but that's clearly not what he was saying and would make no sense whatsoever.  He was plainly talking about American detective agencies having offered to find the unknown murderer of women in Whitechapel, bearing in mind that he was quoted in the same report as stating categorically that Scotland Yard were 'without a jot of evidence' to arrest 'anybody'.

Now, Hawley will point to the fact that Andrews was responding to the question, 'How many men have you working in America?' but the whole point here is that, with Hawley's own interpretation, Andrews has decided to completely ignore that question and simply revealed to the reporter that American detective agencies had offered to help Scotland Yard find the murderer.  If he's ignored the question then it follows that we can't simply assume that those American detective agencies had offered to find the murderer in America

That being so, when Inspector Andrews said the key words, 'But we can do that ourselves, you know' he was only speaking about the ability of Scotland Yard to find the murderer in London.  He was saying, in other words: 'we don't need the help of the American detective agenciesWe can do it all on our own.

If, on the other hand, Hawley's got it wrong and Andrews WAS, bizarrely, saying that Scotland Yard had men working in America to find the murderer, then his qualification that 'I meant detective agencies' applied to the half a dozen men.  In which case, when Andrews said 'But we can do that ourselves, you know' he meant that he didn't need help of an the unspecified number of American detective agencies because Scotland Yard already had six American private detectives working in America on the case for some reason (albeit that the actual question was not how many men were working in America on the case, just how many men were working in America full stop and it's only the fact that this question follows on in the report from Andrews talking about the Whitechapel murder case that makes it seem that it was being asked about the case, but that might not have been what happened in reality and the question and answer might just have been an insertion out of context into the report, thus giving a misleading impression of what was being discussed).

Either way, therefore, Andrews did NOT state that 'Scotland Yard officials were searching in America' for the Whitechapel murderer.

And that's if the reported conversation really did occur.  There must be some doubt because it was the dodgy World correspondent and there is no corroboration from any other reporter.  I suspect that it was common practice for American journalists to add in 'exclusive' and somewhat sensational quotes to spice up a story.  Alternatively, it could just be a garbled report of a short conversation that did happen.  But, as far as I am concerned, all that Inspector Andrews genuinely did say to reporters that day in Montreal was that there were 23 detectives, two clerks and one inspector employed on the Whitechapel murder cases and that the police were without a jot of evidence upon which to arrest anybody.  That's all I find reported elsewhere and it's the only thing that is reported in ALL the reports of what he said that day in Montreal.  Where Inspector Andrews is quoted as saying something in only one report, where there is no corroboration of it, and where what he is quoted as saying is strange and does not fit either with the known facts or with what he was quoted as saying by more reliable newspapers, we should, I think, treat those quotes with great caution.  Hawley fails to do so.

Having introduced the subject of Bondeson to attempt to destroy the claim attributed to me, but which was in fact invented by Hawley, that Logan had weak connections, Hawley gave himself a headache because Bondeson expressly stated that Logan's claim about Andrews going to America to catch the Ripper had nothing to do with Tumblety!!!  So now Hawley has to try and undermine that. Hence we have to have all the usual waffle which Hawley likes to repeat in every article, every book and no doubt every rambling and error strewn talk he has ever given about why Tumblety must have been Scotland Yard's prime suspect in 1888.  

As a result we find some Hawley classics which I've already dealt with in 'Hawley's Howlers' and/or 'The Euston Incident'.  The first one is this:

'Greaves’ news cable detailed at least four Ripper-related stories out of London, and none of these stories were ever in the British papers' (page 18)

No, indeed, and at least one of them, the reward supposedly offered by Leon Rothschild looks very much like an erroneous story, or even a fabrication, for the reasons set out in 'The Euston Incident'. 

Mind you, I say 'No, indeed' but I really don't know what these 'four Ripper-related stories' were.  In his 2016 book, 'The Ripper's Haunts', Hawley says that the Kumblety story was embedded in a larger story 'which contained four of five other stories on the Jack the Ripper case'.  Odd ain't it?  All these different numbers out of one short article.  Is it four or is it five or is it six including the 'Kumblety' story?  Well let's see. There's the Sir George Arthur arrest story.  That's followed immediately by the Kumblety arrest story which, in turn, is followed by the story of Leon Rothschild's reward.  Hawley can count can't he?  Let's do it together.  Sir George Arthur. ONE.  Kumblety.  TWO.  Rothschild.  THREE.  And, um...  Where is the fourth?  Let alone the fifth? Let alone the sixth?  Hawley tells us there were 'at least four Ripper related stories out of London'  in Greaves' despatch none of which were ever in the British papers.  Well the Sir George Arthur arrest story WAS in the British papers, so we're actually down to two.  The Kumblety story and the Rothschild story.  As I've said, the Rothschild story is apparently false.  No-one offers a reward to the people of Britain which is never publicised in a single British newspaper, or announced in any other way that the British people will ever get to hear about it, so the very thing that Hawley tells us about the story which is supposed to give it credibility, i.e. its exclusivity, reveals that it is either a fabrication or an error.

Then we have: 

'On two earlier occasions Greaves admitted that he had a Scotland Yard source, which could only have been his source for these stories.' (pages 18-19)

The problem for Hawley is that one of those two occasions involved a ludicrous and patently fabricated claim that Scotland Yard knew the identity of the murderer, and where he lived (in Grovesnor Square!), and that there was going to be a 'sensation of such magnitude' in the not too far distant future when he was arrested.  It was, of course, utter bullshit, yet Greaves attributed it to 'a gentleman who stands in close relations with Scotland Yard'.  This same individual, according to Hawley, who is supposed to have been the source of the information that Tumblety was arrested on suspicion of the murders!!!

It's almost certain that the gentleman who stood in close relations to Scotland Yard was a different individual to the 'Scotland Yard man' to whom Greaves does appear to have spoken on one single occasion who told him something about the 'mysterious American' (not Tumblety) who had been attempting to acquire human organs.  And that is really the extent of Greaves' so called 'Scotland Yard informant'.  Someone he might have bumped into once and never spoken to again. 

In any case, Hawley's claim that Greaves' Scotland Yard informant 'could only have been the source' for his Kumblety story on 17 November entirely contradicts what Hawley himself said in his 2014 Ripperologist article (Rip 139).  In that article he speculated that Greaves could have obtained the information about 'Kumblety' by sneaking a look at a document in a police station or speaking to a lowly uniformed police desk sergeant.  Hence:

'...chances are he visited the police station and  saw the arrest in the accessible police blotter and/or he spoke to the sergeant behind the tall desk..'. 

Back then, those were the 'chances'.  Now it 'could only' have been a Scotland Yard source!  Clearly, Hawley says whatever suits him at any particular time.  It's pure wishful thinking on his part to believe that Greaves' information on the 'Kumblety' story came from Scotland Yard. 

Next in the line of classic Hawley rubbish: 

4 Bondeson, J., “Guy Logan vs. Jack the Ripper”, Ripperologist 134,
October 2013.
5 Logan, G., The True History of Jack the Ripper, 1905.
Ripperologist 166 March 2020
informant, which could only have been his source for these stories.

'Since contemporary sources, i.e., E. Tracy Greaves and Chief Inspector Byrnes, show that Scotland Yard was ultimately the source of newspapers reporting on Tumblety being arrested on suspicion...' (page 19).

Yawn, no they don't.  Their information could have come from any number of sources.

Next one: 

'...it stands to reason that Logan’s source informed him that Inspector Andrews’ December 1888 North American trip involved Tumblety, who had arrived in New York City on December 2, 1888' (page 19).

Logan's source might well have informed him of this, based on what he had understood the position to be in 1888, itself based on what had been reported in some newspapers, but Logan's source, as we know for a fact, was wrong. 

And on it goes. 

'Reinforcing this is that Tumblety had indeed vanished on December 5, thus, the December 9/10 commission by headquarters was to first find him, just as Logan stated' (page 19).

While Tumblety might have 'vanished', which simply means that he left New York, the question that needs to be asked is: Was anyone actually looking for him?  There is no evidence that anyone was.  A couple of press reporters, maybe.  But that's it. The New York police wasn't after him.  The London police wasn't after him.

He don't stop. 

'Since Tumblety stayed in hiding until mid-January 1889, then Andrews’ mission involving Tumblety was not a success' (page 19).

Talk about a non-sequitur. The second part of that sentence just does not follow from the first.  It's a dreadful, flawed conclusion.  You have to let it sink in.  He is saying, with a straight face, apparently, that because Tumblety stayed in hiding until mid-January 1889 this means that Andrews' supposed mission involving Tumblety, which exists only inside Hawley's head, and for which he has zero evidence, and can only speculate about what it might have been, even though there was no such mission, is deemed to have been unsuccessful!  But Andrews left Canada on 22 December and had nothing to do with Tumblety for the very short period while he was in that country on an important extradition job. 

Hawley's final comment is that:

'Nothing in New York City would have involved his extradition mission, but corroboration from numerous sources shows that this mission  involved the Whitechapel murders and the search and interview of suspect Francis Tumblety.' (p.19)

It's wishful thinking only.  It has been proved in the records of the Home Office that Inspector Andrew's mission in December 1888 was nothing more than to escort Barnett to Toronto, ensure his committal to trial and then return pronto to Blighty.  All else is Tumblety obsessive fantasy. 

Joe Chetcuti and Roger Palmer, who are thanked at the end of the piece for their 'assistance and advice', do really need to give Mr Hawley much better advice in future - please tell me you didn't both read and approve a draft of his article before publication? - and stop him from infecting our already infected world with this endless stream of Tumblety nonsense which is absolutely and 100% affecting the credibility of the otherwise perfectly reasonable argument that Tumblety was the Whitechapel murderer.

Lord Orsam
27 March 2020
(with some minor errors and typos amended on 29 October 2020)


To all members of the Casebook Censorship Forum.  Do not attempt to raise any of the issues from this article on the Forum with the author Mike Hawley or to question or challenge him in any way.  Such seditious behaviour is strictly against the Forum rules, due to the special protection afforded to selected authors, especially those with personal connections to the moderator, and any thread in which Hawley is treated with anything less than presidential reverence and respect will be closed by the moderator or administrator, or both, and you will, quite rightly, without any right of reply, be found guilty of harassment and badgering the poor man.  You have been warned. Any suggestion you dare to make on the Forum that Hawley doesn't have the faintest clue what he is talking about is at your own risk.  Lord Orsam cannot and will not accept responsibility or liability for loss of your membership of the Forum.