top of page
Search

Quadrilogy Matters

  • Lord Orsam
  • Sep 3, 2023
  • 2 min read

Three months after the Suckered! Trilogy in September 2015 came the Suckered! Plus Quadrilogy. I would say this was both a masterful forensic response to Wolf Vanderlinden's claim that the Trilogy lacked historical context and a serious contribution to a study of British political history of the 1880s.


And there's four parts to it!



Part 1 of the Quadrilogy deals largely with the widely misunderstood role of Robert Anderson in relation to the Times newspaper's fight with Charles Parnell. I don't think anyone had ever collated all the evidence and analysed it properly before.


For Part 2, which deals with the role played by the British Government in the Parnell Commission inquiry, I actually went to the lengths of instructing a researcher based in Ireland to obtain for me a copy of a memorandum written by a person who we would today call a 'whistleblower', William Henry Joyce. Very few people have ever seen this memorandum, held in an archive in Dublin, yet it is crucial to read it to consider whether Joyce's allegations are credible. I am quite sure that Wolf Vanderlinden, who cited Joyce, had never seen it. It's also perfectly obvious that Vanderlinden had misunderstood the role of Henri Le Caron and his relationship with Anderson. My forensic analysis of the role of William Hoare, the British Consul in New York is also, it has to be said, pretty impressive.


In part 3, I resolve a number of longstanding misunderstandings about the role of Chief Inspector Littlechild in respect of the Parnell inquiry and, I think, prove that Scotland Yard had no role in the flight of Richard Pigott in February 1889. I also provide what can only be regarded as the definitive chronology of events in respect of Pigott's suicide, which had never been done before.


Part 4 deals with the resignations of James Monro and Charles Warren from their respective positions at Scotland Yard and firmly knocks on the head the idea that any of those resignations can be regarded as suspicious or connected in any with any conspiracy theories.


It was a bit of a shame when they were first published that some members of the Casebook Forum decided to discuss whether the correct word for a series of four articles was 'quadrilogy' or 'tetralogy' but that's the Casebook Forum for you.


I think they are all worth a read. They are all now available on this site under the 'Historic Articles' tab.


LORD ORSAM 3 September 2023




 
 
 

Comments

Rated 0 out of 5 stars.
No ratings yet

Add a rating

©2024 by Orsam Music for Bubblegumelicious.

Created with Wix.com

The Sagar Saga: Finding the Missing Ling

In January 1905, former City detective inspector Robert Sagar, who had just retired, apparently gave interviews to reporters of four London newspapers in which he spoke of his knowledge of Jack the Ripper. 

Sagar 1.jpg

The articles containing these interviews, while very similar (indicating that they must have taken place at the same time) are all, nevertheless, a little bit different from each other and, in October 2020, Chris Phillips prepared a helpful comparison of the four reports featured side by side, which can be found here [Chris has now updated them to include the Evening News here].  He had, however, only located three reports from London newspapers, but was aware that there must have been a fourth report because such a report (different from the other three) was carried by some American newspapers, hence he included the Seattle Daily Times (of 4 February 1905) as his fourth report.

I have, however, now located the additional report in a London newspaper.  It was in the Evening News of Saturday, 7 January 1905.  It's not identical to the Seattle Daily Times report but it's close enough, especially in respect of the bit about Jack the Ripper, that, for comparison purposes, what Chris has labelled the Seattle Times report, can be regarded as the Evening News report.  There are, nevertheless, some important differences between the two which I will be discussing. 

So the four "interview" reports with Sagar that we have, are:

1. City Press of Saturday, 7 January, 1905.

2. Evening News of Saturday, 7 January, 1905.

3. Morning Leader of Monday, 9 January, 1905.

4. Daily News of Monday, 9 January, 1905 

A quick glance through these reports reveals that one of them is, curiously, very different to the others.

While the reports in the Evening News, Morning Leader and Daily News all contain quotes from Sagar, the City Press does not.  Its report is written purely in the third person, with no hint that its reporter had ever even spoken to the former detective.

The Morning Leader on the other hand tells us that, 'To a "Morning Leader" representative Mr. Sagar related some of his experiences'.  The Daily News is even more explicit as to when its reporter spoke to Sagar.  Hence, we are told that Sagar spoke to 'a representative of 'The Daily News on Saturday'.

That would seem to make sense.  All four reporters spoke to Robert Sagar on Saturday, 7 January 1905, right?

WRONG!

That's impossible. 

The City Press newspaper was published early on Saturday morning, so that it could not possibly have interviewed Sagar on Saturday and carried a report of the interview in its Saturday edition.  Here is the proof that the City Press was published on Saturday morning in January 1905:

Sagar 2.jpg

I'm a paragraph. Click here to add your own text and edit me. It's easy.

I'm a paragraph. Click here to add your own text and edit me. It's easy.

I'm a paragraph. Click here to add your own text and edit me. It's easy.

bottom of page