Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Wickerman 14 minutes ago.
Shades of Whitechapel: Centenaries - whole and half - by RockySullivan 56 minutes ago.
Shades of Whitechapel: Centenaries - whole and half - by sdreid 2 hours ago.
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - by caz 5 hours ago.
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - by Kaz 6 hours ago.
Maybrick, James: 25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith - by Kaz 6 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - (19 posts)
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - (2 posts)
Shades of Whitechapel: Centenaries - whole and half - (2 posts)
Maybrick, James: 25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith - (1 posts)
Hutchinson, George: The Enigma That Is Richard Blake - (1 posts)
General Police Discussion: Police Orders 1st October 1888 - (1 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Suspects > Tumblety, Francis

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #131  
Old 11-28-2017, 05:49 PM
Ally Ally is offline
WWotW
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,177
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mklhawley View Post
I just found that out. Michael Sandhopp keeps things from me, too. Don't you recall the issues we had before?
Just out of curiosity, since this information is apparently not contained in the main probate file, and Sandknop you say "keeps things from you", what assurances do we have that this is true? And again, I am making no accusations whatsoever, but we have one researcher, years ago, who paid money to obtain the probate file and none of this was in it.

Now we have another researcher, who is playing "secret squirrel" with the information and saying "I have this stuff, I won't say where I got it, and no it's not in the "official record" but it's absolutely genuine.

So my question is...how have you absolutely ascertained beyond a reasonable doubt that these records are absolutely genuine beyond a doubt?

If we are going to question Tim R's credibility and verifieds, it seems only fair we do the same for Sandknops.
__________________

Let all Oz be agreed;
I'm Wicked through and through.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #132  
Old 11-28-2017, 06:13 PM
mklhawley mklhawley is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Greater Buffalo, New York
Posts: 1,859
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ally View Post
Just out of curiosity, since this information is apparently not contained in the main probate file, and Sandknop you say "keeps things from you", what assurances do we have that this is true? And again, I am making no accusations whatsoever, but we have one researcher, years ago, who paid money to obtain the probate file and none of this was in it.

Now we have another researcher, who is playing "secret squirrel" with the information and saying "I have this stuff, I won't say where I got it, and no it's not in the "official record" but it's absolutely genuine.

So my question is...how have you absolutely ascertained beyond a reasonable doubt that these records are absolutely genuine beyond a doubt?

If we are going to question Tim R's credibility and verifieds, it seems only fair we do the same for Sandknops.
I understand. A few things... As I've found out, Riordan, and before this, Gainey, did not received the main file, so don't make that assumption. They received the most easily accessible file. That's different. Last January, I spoke with the archivist on the phone as the Norris material (plus what came with it) was being photographed by Michael. The archivist said to me (not Michael) many details, such as no one has seen it since around 1908. Michael was emailing me everything, images.

By all means, be skeptical, but I have images. Actually, I purposely released everything I have to experts not considered "pro-Tumblety". They promised not to say anything. I wanted to see what they thought. They are convinced of their authenticity.

Michael is not a ripper researcher and could care less how long we wait. He has a personal agenda and wants to see this through. I get that. It's only because I'm pushing him that he even allowed it to go on Rippercast.

Mike
__________________
The Ripper's Haunts (Sunbury Press)
http://www.michaelLhawley.com
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #133  
Old 11-28-2017, 06:57 PM
Ally Ally is offline
WWotW
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,177
Default

The "easily accessible file"?? It's a court records office. They don't have multiple levels of files by accessibility..... You give them a case file number and they give the file to you. It's not like there's layers of accessibility in a file??
__________________

Let all Oz be agreed;
I'm Wicked through and through.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #134  
Old 11-28-2017, 11:10 PM
rjpalmer rjpalmer is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 128
Default

Now that that's settled, I would like to make one observation on Wolf Vanderlinden's "thesis", theory, claims, whatever you wish to call them.

In his latest post he gives a long list of "facts." These are supposedly indisputable, etc.,

Currently, I am only interested in one of these "facts."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolf Vanderlinden View Post
FACT: Tumblety’s landlady stated that Tumblety never had any medical instruments in his room “at any time,” and no one from the boarding house came forward to say that they had seen them either.
Since this is a "fact," Wolf, will you please cite your source that the landlady stated that Tumilty had no medical instruments in his room?

Let me call on the following, in hopes that it might trigger your memory:

The Times-Democrat (New Orleans) 26 March 1881.

"Regarding the burglar's tools said to have been seen in the room, the doctor produced a letter from Mrs. Fields, his landlady, which gave that statement the lie direct. The letter was addressed to the detectives, and conveyed the information that the doors of the doctor's room were always open, and the interior of his chamber in full view of any one passing the hall. There never was a burglar's tool or anything resembling one in the room, and what was more, the appartment was not entered by any one from the moment the doctor left with O'Malley until the latter returned with the search warrant."

I see that Mrs. Fields denies a burglar's tool.

I think we can both agree that a burglar's tool is not a case of "medical instruments."

Is this an error on your part, or do you have a source for this "fact" that she (as you say) specifically denied the medical instruments?

It seems like an important distinction.

I thank you in advance for your clarification.

Last edited by rjpalmer : 11-28-2017 at 11:14 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #135  
Old 11-29-2017, 04:07 AM
Ally Ally is offline
WWotW
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,177
Default

Er.... nothing has actually been settled.

At all.
__________________

Let all Oz be agreed;
I'm Wicked through and through.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #136  
Old 12-07-2017, 12:16 PM
rjpalmer rjpalmer is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 128
Default

Well, it's been over a week and Wolf Vanderlinden seems to be in no hurry to explain his misleading statement, so let me try.

Here it is again:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolf Vanderlinden View Post
FACT: Tumblety’s landlady stated that Tumblety never had any medical instruments in his room “at any time,” and no one from the boarding house came forward to say that they had seen them either.
It is important to realize that this statement comes, not from the landlady herself, nor from anyone else at the actual trial. Rather, what Wolf is referring to is a bit of free-and-easy editorializing from the New Orleans Times-Democrat, a newspaper that was always very favorable to Chief Boylan and the political machinery at the N.O.P.D.

Here is the actual quote:

"It was charged at first that mysterious instruments and tools of unholy character were found in Dr. Tumblety's room at the time of his arrest. It was also set up, as having an unfavorable significance, that large quantities of diamonds were found upon his person. As for the tools and instruments, they seem to be inventions. Nobody has ever seen them, and the landlady, Mrs. Field, emphatically declares that there were no such articles in Dr. Tumblety's room at any time."

My emphasis.

Vanderlinden has clearly changed "mysterious instruments" and "unholy" instruments (ie.,burglar's tools) to "medical instruments." Thus he is claiming--wrongly--that Mrs. Field specifically denied the presence of the scalpels and/or medical knives later mentioned by Norris.

But this is obviously merely Wolf's misstatement.

Here is what actually took place at the trial as quoted BY THE SAME NEWSPAPER (The Times-Democrat):

"Regarding the burglar's tools said to have been seen in the room, the doctor produced a letter from Mrs. Fields, his landlady, which gave that statement the lie direct. The letter was addressed to the detectives, and conveyed the information that the doors of the doctor's room were always open, and the interior of his chamber in full view of any one passing the hall. There never was a burglar's tool or anything resembling one in the room, and what was more, the appartment was not entered by any one from the moment the doctor left with O'Malley until the latter returned with the search warrant."

My emphasis.

Clearly, undeniably, Mrs. Field was talking about burglar's tools, not a case medical instruments. This is what the Times-Democrat's editorializing meant by "unholy" and "mysterious" instruments in referring to their own coverage of the trial.

Indeed, there would be no reason whatsoever for Mrs Field to mention doctor's equipment, since she assumed Tumilty was a legitimate and highly respected physician. Nor would any newspaper think to call a doctor's medical kit as being either "mysterious" or "unholy." Certainly not in 1881, seven years before Tumilty was even a suspect in the Whitechapel murders.

Thus, as I see it, Wolf's argument for dismissing Norris's account of the knives is a mistaken one with no basis in reality.

Thanks.

Last edited by rjpalmer : 12-07-2017 at 12:25 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:34 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.