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:
Ripperologist: Ripperologist 161 April/May 2018 - by Ginger 3 hours ago.
Witnesses: Our Charles Cross - by GUT 6 hours ago.
Witnesses: Our Charles Cross - by GUT 6 hours ago.
Witnesses: Caroline Maxwell Alibi ? - by packers stem 7 hours ago.
Witnesses: Our Charles Cross - by MrBarnett 7 hours ago.
Witnesses: Caroline Maxwell Alibi ? - by GUT 7 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Witnesses: Caroline Maxwell Alibi ? - (17 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: What was occuring in 1888? - (6 posts)
Witnesses: Our Charles Cross - (5 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - (3 posts)
General Discussion: Mug Shots from 1908-1911 - (3 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: What EAR/ONS teaches us about JtR - (2 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
  #121  
Old 11-28-2017, 04:33 PM
jmenges jmenges is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,293
Default

I've contacted Tim Riordan and it turns out there is a very good reason why his book 'Prince of Quacks' did not contain any of the startling information discovered by Michael Sandknop and revealed by Michael Hawley. He did not receive those documents. He requested the probate case that he cites in his book from the clerk in the office of the probate court in St. Louis and instructed them to send him everything, much to their chagrin. Which, as far as he was concerned, they did. It was not cheap but, apparently, still incomplete.

From what I understand, and Mike can correct me if I am wrong, these specific documents concerning testimony about Tumblety's hermaphroditic condition, his knife collection, his assault on Norris, and all of the other new information were not a part of the main probate court records but rather spread around in several other locations in the county court system. This should have been pointed out at the beginning. Where exactly these documents reside is known only to Mr. Sandknop. That is, until someone else drives over to St. Louis.

So, Tim Riordan was not lying about reviewing the probate case, and it can be said that he did rediscover at least a portion of it. The question I would like answered is which documents ended up where (appeals court, etc) and why they were never returned to the same probate file as they pertained to the same parent case.

JM

Last edited by jmenges : 11-28-2017 at 04:37 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #122  
Old 11-28-2017, 04:42 PM
Ally Ally is offline
WWotW
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,177
Default

I'm confused. So ... the information that supposedly contains all this salacious and highly titillating information was not actually found in the probate case on record in the clerk's office at all but in ...other... places? What other places?

I might be dim, I have a terrible headache, but that makes no sense. Especially considering Tim has been accused of willfully withholding information, which frankly, never made any kind of sense at all, why would any author not bring forth juicy info like this if he had it?

Where precisely was this information discovered, if not in the official records?
__________________

Let all Oz be agreed;
I'm Wicked through and through.

Last edited by Ally : 11-28-2017 at 04:47 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old 11-28-2017, 05:04 PM
jmenges jmenges is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,293
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ally View Post
I'm confused. So ... the information that supposedly contains all this salacious and highly titillating information was not actually found in the probate case on record in the clerk's office at all but in ...other... places? What other places?

Where precisely was this information discovered, if not in the official records?
From what I understand, due to the various appeals and such that took place after the original probate decree was filed, certain testimony was given in a different court and so those transcripts sit there (wherever "there" is) rather than in the main probate case from which the appeals arose. I would guess that had Tim requested everything and specified that his request included each and every connected appeal, he would have received them. Why the appeals to the probate were not partnered with the main probate case in the courts records, after everything was said and done, is a mystery. Perhaps its the fault of bureaucracy or overall horrible record keeping by the county.

JM
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old 11-28-2017, 05:15 PM
mklhawley mklhawley is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Greater Buffalo, New York
Posts: 1,902
Default

Great job, Jonathan, you are correct. The documents are not found in one location. Keep in mind, after the judge instructed the jury to "find for the defense" in 1905, there was a motion for a new trial which took three years to end (only on Michael Fitzsimmons' death). They then had to deal with the 1901 will. Everything was finalized in 1908, but then the lawyers filed lawsuits against each other until 1910!

Sincerely,

Mike
__________________
The Ripper's Haunts/JtR Suspect Dr. Francis Tumblety (Sunbury Press)
http://www.michaelLhawley.com
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #125  
Old 11-28-2017, 05:18 PM
GUT GUT is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: I come from a land Down Under
Posts: 7,320
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mklhawley View Post
Great job, Jonathan, you are correct. The documents are not found in one location. Keep in mind, after the judge instructed the jury to "find for the defense" in 1905, there was a motion for a new trial which took three years to end (only on Michael Fitzsimmons' death). They then had to deal with the 1901 will. Everything was finalized in 1908, but then the lawyers filed lawsuits against each other until 1910!

Sincerely,

Mike

Sounds like the real winners were the lawyers, I love a story with a happy ending.
__________________
G U T

There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #126  
Old 11-28-2017, 05:18 PM
Ally Ally is offline
WWotW
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,177
Default

Mike... if you were aware that the documents were not all in one location, then why precisely were you accusing Tim of lying or hiding the truth? Surely you must have been aware that the hermaphrodite information was not located in the main probate file.

Do you not see the ... wrongness of you accusing a man of misleading and lying when you were aware that the main probate file did not contain the information you were accusing him of hiding?

Also... where was this information found if not in the actual court records?
__________________

Let all Oz be agreed;
I'm Wicked through and through.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #127  
Old 11-28-2017, 05:33 PM
mklhawley mklhawley is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Greater Buffalo, New York
Posts: 1,902
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ally View Post
Mike... if you were aware that the documents were not all in one location, then why precisely were you accusing Tim of lying or hiding the truth? Surely you must have been aware that the hermaphrodite information was not located in the main probate file.

Do you not see the ... wrongness of you accusing a man of misleading and lying when you were aware that the main probate file did not contain the information you were accusing him of hiding?

Also... where was this information found if not in the actual court records?
I just found that out. Michael Sandhopp keeps things from me, too. Don't you recall the issues we had before?
__________________
The Ripper's Haunts/JtR Suspect Dr. Francis Tumblety (Sunbury Press)
http://www.michaelLhawley.com
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #128  
Old 11-28-2017, 05:35 PM
mklhawley mklhawley is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Greater Buffalo, New York
Posts: 1,902
Default

And by the way, I never accused Tim. You got that wrong. I was arguing a point with Wolf. Yes, I was curious about that way back in February, so if I was going to accuse him, then I waited? No, I was getting verbally abused by Wolf.
__________________
The Ripper's Haunts/JtR Suspect Dr. Francis Tumblety (Sunbury Press)
http://www.michaelLhawley.com
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #129  
Old 11-28-2017, 05:35 PM
rjpalmer rjpalmer is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 273
Default

Hi Ally, you've misread. And little wonder with all the shouting.

As far as I can tell, Hawley never accused Riordan of withholding information. Vanderlinden ACCUSED Hawley of stating (or implying) that Riordan was withholding information. It was Vanderlinden going ballistic, not Hawley.

Read again carefully:


Quote:
Originally Posted by mklhawley View Post
These documents completely conflict with this (contradict your woman-hater theory which is why you're fighting this so much). This means Riordan purposely withheld this, but I'm sure it's a case that he never saw them. Are you trying to tell me that Riordan would not have published the fact that Tumblety was a hermaphrodite and not take credit for this, especially when this condition has nothing to do with the murders? Riigghht.
A little confusing? Sure, but can't you see he is saying exactly the same thing you said in your first post? Mike states quite clearly "I am sure it's a case that HE (Riordan) NEVER SAW THEM."

Never saw them.

Everyone knew this but Wolf V. With partial information, and his eagerness to score a point, he accused Hawley of saying something he never said.

And Riordan didn't discover these probate records, but that hardly matters. Paul Gainey first accessed them in the mid-1990s. Anyone who came along afterwards and requested the file got the same papers from St. Louis as Gainey did, including Riordan. It would be better to stick to the actual discussion of the documents instead of so much chest thumping. THANKS
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #130  
Old 11-28-2017, 05:46 PM
Ally Ally is offline
WWotW
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,177
Default

I am referring to this, which seeems to me, like a pretty unequivocal accusation that Tim either never actually saw the records, and lied that he had, or that he withheld the truth.


Quote:
Originally Posted by mklhawley View Post
Wolf! You're back!

I haven't read your efforts to redeem yourself, yet, but I will. I did read the first, though, and if Riordan did indeed see these, then he purposely hid the truth. I, on the other hand, will believe the archivist who said NO ONE HAS REVIEWED THESE SINCE AROUND 1905. Have we uncovered a Riordan lie, claiming to have read them? He either did and held facts or he did not and claimed he did.
__________________

Let all Oz be agreed;
I'm Wicked through and through.
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 09:42 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.