Tumblety - Hermaphrodite.

[David Orsam]

If they’re over thirteen it dosnt rule out force?

Even for an indecent assault charge against an adult this would not necessarily mean that force must have been used.

In a 1951 case in the Court of Criminal Appeal, it was said that for an act to amount to an indecent assault there must be "a threat or hostile act" and I believe the law was the same in 1888. That's quite a broad definition and means that there was no actual requirement for force to have been used.

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Hi all.

I’m going to ask a question first because I don’t want this to get lost in all the pointless chatter. I’m asking the question for two reasons: first, I’m interested in the answer, and second, I don’t think it will be answered, and that will be an answer in itself. Here goes.

Who was Widner working for?

You have a Baltimore lawyer, not named in any of the newspaper reports which identified the law teams working for the family, and, in fact, none of the family lived in Baltimore. So, if he wasn’t working for the family, who was he working for?

Thanks in advance (or not, as the case may be).

Wolf.

[GUT]

Hi all.

I’m going to ask a question first because I don’t want this to get lost in all the pointless chatter. I’m asking the question for two reasons: first, I’m interested in the answer, and second, I don’t think it will be answered, and that will be an answer in itself. Here goes.

Who was Widner working for?

You have a Baltimore lawyer, not named in any of the newspaper reports which identified the law teams working for the family, and, in fact, none of the family lived in Baltimore. So, if he wasn’t working for the family, who was he working for?

Thanks in advance (or not, as the case may be).

Wolf.

The estate Id guess

[rjpalmer]

Hi Wolf. The will was challenged and went to probate. Yup; that's why these documents exist. We've know that for years. It hardly proves that Citizen K from Sugar Town, shook the sugar down.

All the best, RP. (with apologies to Bob Dylan).

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Hi GUT.

The estate Id guess.

Nope. The estate was in the hands of the public administer for St. Louis, Garrard Strode, who had assumed executive control of Tumblety’s 1903 will. It was this will that the family was trying to overturn by proving Tumblety was insane and Norris’s deposition was part of this attempt.

Mike Hawley, in post #43, states that “Of course you have to say Norris was paid off, but you also have to say his attorney Frank Widner was paid off…,” which would mean that Widner was working against the St. Louis will and, therefore, against the estate.

However, I think Hawley is wrong here. Why would Norris, who lived in New Orleans and made his deposition there (as far as I know) be represented by a Baltimore lawyer? It’s more likely, in my mind, that Norris was Widner’s witness rather than Widner was Norris’s lawyer.

I think I know what the answer is, but it’s only supposition on my part, and I’d like to know for sure. The clue is in the fact that Widner was a Baltimore lawyer. If I’m right, it’s another strike against Norris as a credible witness. I think that’s why the question isn’t being answered (and you’ll notice that RJ Palmer felt the need to post gibberish rather than answer my question).

So, now we have two questions:
1 – Who was Widner working for?
2 – Why won’t anyone answer question 1?

Wolf.

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

It’s funny. I wasn’t sure what kind of response I would get by pointing out that Tim Riordan was the first person to discover, and discuss, the St. Louis Probate Court records. Sadly, I had a pretty good idea what I wouldn’t get: embarrassment, shamefacedness, apology, retraction of claims. It seems that in today’s environment anything that would take class, a sense of honour or even the simple ability to tell the truth, has disappeared. Instead we get finger pointing and pseudo-irate accusations that the man who actually was the first to discover the St. Louis probate records was a liar who hid important information (and this coming from the same Mike Hawley who got caught altering Norris’s deposition in order to make it fit with his theory). This is all classic deflection of course (which is in itself telling).

Saying that Tim should have written this, that or the other thing in his book is irrelevant as it’s beside the point (the point, let me remind everyone, being: why is Mike Hawley claiming someone else’s discovery?). As I said, it’s a classic deflection as in ‘don’t blame me, blame the victim. It’s their fault.’ And, apparently, Mike needs the deflection because he seems to have actually known that Tim was the first to make this discovery.

When Jonathan posted this:
“The information about T’s probate fight over the will in Tim Riordan’s ‘Prince of Quacks’ doesn’t come close to mentioning the issues brought out by Mike Hawley’s and Sandknops discoveries, which led me to believe they were new. Otherwise why would Riordan ignore them?...”
Jmenges post #55.
(And let me add, if anyone doesn’t want people asking the question “why would you ignore ‘X’ when you wrote your book?” it’s Mike Hawley.)

We got this answer:
“Actually, Jonathan, I knew of this issue when the archivist showed conclusive evidence that the documents were not opened since 1908ish and I was not going to bring it up…”
Mike Hawley post #56 (my emphasis).

So, in other words, Mike admits that he knew that Tim Riordan was the first to claim discovery of the St. Louis probate records but decided to say nothing about this and, in fact, claim credit for the find himself.

Why wouldn’t Hawley, who intensely dislikes anyone who dares to point out his many mistakes, both accidental and purposeful (and Tim did that in spades), run to the nearest computer and gleefully rat out Tim? After all, this is the man who accused me of cherry picking newspaper stories on this very board and, when asked to prove his claim, merely left sneering responses and then ran away. This is the very man who is accusing Tim Riordan of lying but won’t back that up with any actual evidence (other than an archivist told him something he claims is “conclusive” but he hasn’t bothered to tell us what it is or show us that it exists at all).

More importantly, why didn’t he, once he got his hands on the 900 pages of probate records, actually check to see if Tim was lying or telling the truth? This would have been a relatively simple task and it would have proved, or disproved, Tim’s primacy. The answer to that question would have allowed him to a) attack Tim with concrete proof that he lied, if, indeed he did lie, and b) if Tim did lie, to allow Mike to claim primacy. Instead we are led to believe that Mike blithely ignored proving or disproving Tim’s claim of discovery and, just as blithely, take credit for it himself.

So, as I said, checking would be a relatively simple task so let’s see if we can settle this.

Tim’s bibliography in Prince of Quacks (McFarland & Company, 2009) page 225, under the subheading “Public Records,” has this: “St. Louis City Probate Court. 1903 – 1908 probate Papers Related to the Estate of Francis Tumblety, case no. 29083.”
Is this the correct title and case number?

Under “Notes” for “Chapter 16,” note #17 on page 223, Tim states “William Duvall gave a deposition on his relationship to Tumblety and the doctor’s time in Baltimore on March 20, 1905. See Case #29083, St. Louis Probate Court.”
Did Duvall give such a deposition on that date and is it in the case files?

Note # 18 on page 233, Tim states “…Kemp’s deposition was taken on March 20, 1905, Case #29083, St. Louis Probate Court.”
Did Joseph R. Kemp give a deposition on that date and is it in the case files?

Note # 19 on page 233, Tim states “Simpson’s testimony is in a deposition taken on March 20, 1905, Case #29083, St. Louis Probate Court.”
Did Robert H. Simpson give a deposition on that date and is it in the case files?

On page 199 Tim writes “Daniel O’Donovan, owner of the United Engraving Company, recalled his first meeting with Tumblety: ‘I think he had been watching our place for a couple of days from the outside, and I thought he was a beggar, and wanted to hold me up. He came in and wanted to buy two or three little things, I don’t know what they were, odds and ends of stationary, and he took a lot of my time, and I bothered with him because he appeared to be poor and unfortunate; I thought I was patronizing him, and as subsequent events proved he thought he was patronizing me.’(21)”
Note # 21 on page 233, states “O’Donovan’s testimony is in a deposition taken on March 20, 1905, Case #29083, St. Louis Probate Court.”
Did Daniel O’Donovan give a deposition? Did he state the above in his deposition? Did he give such a deposition on that date and is it in the case files?

Note # 22 on page 233, states “Widner’s testimony is in a deposition taken on March 20, 1905, Case #29083, St. Louis Probate Court.”
On page 200 Tim writes about Tumblety and Frank Widner jr. He states that Tumblety went looking for his lawyers (Simpson) and couldn’t find them. He “asked one of the elevator operators to help him find an attorney that ‘had light hair and was a young man.’”
Tim also writes on pages 200/201 that “While [Tumblety] was gone, he kept up a correspondence with Widner. In later depositions, several of these letters were entered as evidence while others were specifically excluded for personal reasons….There were three envelopes and two letters entered and only the signatures on the letters and the address on one envelope were in Tumblety’s handwriting.
“His letter to Widner from New Orleans states that he was sick with rheumatism but as soon as he felt better he would come to Baltimore with ‘all the necessary papers,’ and Widner should have the case continued….On May 19 he wrote to Widner to apologize for not calling on him yet. He stated that he was recovering from a bad cold and hoped to be in Baltimore soon….The final time Widner saw the doctor was on October 18, 1902. When Widner had not heard from Tumblety for a month, he wrote a letter in care of Baltimore general delivery on November 19 which was eventually returned as unclaimed…”
Did Frank Widner give such a deposition on 20 March, 1905, and is it in the case files? Did Widner tell the story about how Tumblety first came to his office and did it include the words “had light hair and was a young man.”?
Did Widner enter as evidence several letters between himself and Tumblety and were some excluded?
Were there three envelopes and two letters entered and only the signatures on the letters and the address on one envelope were in Tumblety’s handwriting?
Was there a letter from Tumblety to Widner from New Orleans in which Tumblety stated that he was sick with rheumatism but would come to Baltimore and did this letter include the words “all the necessary papers”?
Is there a letter from Tumblety to Widner dated 19 May stating that he was recovering from a bad cold?
Did Widner state that the last time he saw Tumblety at his office was on 18 October, 1902?
Did Widner state that he wrote to Tumblety care of the Baltimore general delivery on 19 November, 1902, and that it was returned as unclaimed?

Wolf.

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

I want to pause here for a bit and point out a couple of things.

In post # 37 on these boards Mike Hawley wrote:
“…One of them was a Baltimore attorney Frank Widner, who Tim Riordan claimed was above reproach…”
In post #43 he wrote:
“Of course you have to say Norris was paid off, but you also have to say his attorney Frank Widner was paid off (a man Riordan claims was absolutely right)…”

First of all, and this is no surprise, Tim Riordan doesn’t make the claim that Widner was “above reproach.” Riordan also doesn’t make the claim that Widner was “absolutely right.” Tim just gives a general outline of Widner’s relationship with Tumblety and doesn’t make any reference to Widner’s reliability or veracity at all, so both these statements appear to have been fabricated by Mike Hawley.

Secondly, if, as Mike says, he knew that Tim claimed to be the first person to discover and write about the St. Louis probate records, but he believed he was lying, why is he using Tim’s words (those Mike hasn’t made up) to bolster his case that Widner was a trustworthy source? Shouldn’t we conclude that Widner wasn’t a reliable source if the unreliable Riordan says he is?

Thirdly, as can clearly be seen from the above passage from Tim’s book, Tim is claiming to get his information about Widner’s relationship with Tumblety from the probate records themselves. Mike Hawley has clearly read this section from Tim’s book, as he references it in his two posts (and Widner, for some reason, appears to be important to Mike), so he MUST KNOW whether the above information actually DOES come from the probate records or not.

So why is he claiming that “…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.”?

How can Hawley NOT KNOW if Riordan used the probate records or not after reading the section in Tim’s book regarding Widner?

Wolf.

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Under “Notes” for “Chapter 17,” note #4 on page 224, Tim states “Dr. Temm’s claim on the estate, detailing his services, was filed on February 16, 1904. See Case #29083, St. Louis Probate Court.”
Tim also writes on page 203 that “Temm claimed to have made 66 visits to Tumblety in the hospital…Dr. Temm reports making multiple physical and urinal examinations of the patient.”
Did Dr. Francis A. Temm file a claim on Tumblety’s estate, was it on that date and is it in the case files?
Did Dr. Temm state that he had made 66 visits to see Tumblety in his claim?
Did Dr. Temm state that he made multiple physical and urinal examinations in his claim?

Note #5 on page 224 states “…The Sisters of Mercy filed their claim on the estate on March 23, 1904. See Case #29083, St. Louis Probate Court.”
On page 204 Tim writes “After his death, the Sisters of Mercy claimed damages for ‘furniture, rugs, carpets and bed clothes’ damaged by fire and the dropping of acids and medicines.”
Did the Sisters of Mercy file a claim on Tumblety’s estate, was it on 23 March, 1904, and did it mention damage to “furniture, rugs, carpets and bed clothes”?

Note #6 on page 224 states “Canon filed a detailed claim, on June 1, 1903, with the probate court for services rendered. See Case #29083, St. Louis Probate Court.”
On page 205 Tim writes “Cannon filed an application for probate with the court in St. Louis on May 29, presenting Tumblety’ will…”
Did Thomas Cannon file a detailed claim for services rendered, was it on this date and is it in the files?
Did Thomas Cannon file an application for probate on 29 May, 1903, and is it in the files?

Note #7 on page 224 states “Dr. Brokaw detailed his treatment of Tumblety in a claim filed June 1904. See Case #29083, St. Louis Probate Court;…”
On pages 204/205 Tim writes “Dr. Brokaw’s bill reveals that he treated Tumblety for a broken nose and contusions on the face, injuries consistent with a fall forward or being hit on the face. Specifically, he performed a reduction of a fracture of the nose which involved resetting the bones and packing the nasal cavities. He consulted with Dr. Temm at the hospital every day from the twenty-fourth to twenty-eighth of May.”
Did Dr. A.V.L. Brokaw file a claim on Tumblety’s estate, did he do so in June, 1904, and is the claim in the case files?
Did Dr. Brokaw detail his treatment of Tumblety in is claim and did he state that he treated Tumblety for a broken nose with contusions? Did he state that he visited the hospital every day from the 24th to the 28th of May, 1903?

I could go on, if people want me to, but I think there is enough here to answer the question whether Tim Riordan did indeed use the St. Louis probate court case files to write his book, proving he was the first to discover them, or if he was lying, as Mike claims.

Wolf.

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Mr. Palmer.

Up to your old tricks I see. You obviously either didn’t bother to read what I wrote or you read it and just decided to ignore it (just like old times).

And what turned up in those papers? O (sic), nothing much, beyond the bald fact that Scotland Yard and the Treasury had four young men willing to swear under oath that Tumilty (sic) had sexually assaulted them with “FORCE OF ARMS.”

Force of Arms: with the use of a weapon.

Unless anyone wants to argue that the “force of arms” was a toothbrush.

It has already been pointed out to you by David that the term is not “FORCE OF ARMS,” as you shouted, but “with force and arms” and that “It was not (and should not be) understood literally to mean that a weapon was used.”

And here is what I wrote:

“No incriminating confession there. Norris could be absolved of participation in illegal sexual activities because he was forced by Tumblety and his knife and was not a willing participant. This allowed him to speak about what went on without incriminating himself.

“In London, in 1888, Tumblety was charged with using “Force and Arms” while committing indecent assault against four men for the very same reason. If the four men were forced by Tumblety, and not willing participants, then they could testify as witnesses and not face prosecution themselves. It was, like Norris’s phantom knives, a lie in order for the police and Crown to get what they wanted.”

So, using the phrase “with force and arms” in the legal charge is not about Tumblety actually using a weapon, toothbrush or otherwise. It’s a way for the Crown to use witness testimony without endangering those witnesses to arrest and charges themselves (otherwise why would they speak). You decided to ignore this.

Now, I didn’t make this up and, although it wasn’t my theory originally, it is a theory that I think is extremely valid and important.

Here’s where this theory originally came from:

"A great problem that is not usually considered is the fact that Section 11 of the 1885 Act was looked upon as a 'blackmailer's charter.' The offence was so private that usually the only witness was the injured party. And there was rarely an injured party, for the acts usually took place between consenting males, thus the four 'victims' in Tumblety's case (probably Post Office boys or the 'rent-boys' of the day) stood to be charged with the same offence! It is for this reason, I think, that the charges against Tumblety in all four cases contain the wording 'with Force and Arms', indicating that Tumblety made them commit the offence. In this way the police could use the four as witnesses against Tumblety without prosecuting them, they could claim he forced them to do it. That he did actually force them is rather questionable, as he was probably paying them. It does rather raise the question as to how far the police may have been 'bending' the facts in order to charge Tumblety."
Post by Stewart Evans, writing as “Grey Hunter, on the Why Was Tumblety Arrested On Charges Of Gross Indecency? board, 2 May, 2006.

So, unless you are telling me that your opinion, based on a misreading and misunderstanding of Tumblety’s 1888 charge, is somehow more trustworthy or knowledgeable than Stewart Evans’ opinion on the same subject, we can safely disregard your opinion.

For make no mistake about it. Wolf dearly wants this to go away because it not only puts a knife in the hand of a police suspect in the Whitechapel Murder case, it strongly suggests that he had a similar knife in London in the autumn of 1888.

As you can see above, it doesn’t. But, again, why argue what I posted when you can just ignore it and set up your strawman argument (again, just like old times).

FACT: Tumblety wasn’t an actual doctor, let alone a surgeon. He didn’t use knives in his quack medicine business because he was a Thomsonian and Eclectic physician who sold herbal, botanical and vegetable cures.

FACT: Other than Norris, no credible witness saw “all sorts of large knives” in Tumblety’s room in New Orleans.

FACT: O’Malley claimed to have seen “lots of burglars' tools and a box of medical instruments,” not “all sorts of large knives” in Tumblety’s room in New Orleans.

FACT: O’Malley claimed the burglar tools and the medical instruments had disappeared by the time he returned to search Tumblety’s room and so couldn’t produce them in court.

FACT: Neither the judge nor the police believed O’Malley.

FACT: Two New Orleans Aldermen, charged by the judge to search Tumblety’s room, found no knives or medical instruments.

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.

FACT: The landlady gave Tumblety an affidavit to use in court which supported what she had told the press.

FACT: Norris’s claim in his deposition that that the New Orleans newspapers first reported the finding of burglar tools, but then corrected themselves the next day to say that they found “surgical instruments” instead, is a lie.

FACT: This is at least one (very sloppy) lie in Norris’s deposition.

These are the facts as we know them outside, and independent of, Norris’s claims. But make no mistake, RJ Palmer and Mike Hawley dearly want these facts to, not only go away, but for them to not even to be discussed to begin with.

Wolf.

[mklhawley]

Mike Hawley, in post #43, states that “Of course you have to say Norris was paid off, but you also have to say his attorney Frank Widner was paid off…,” which would mean that Widner was working against the St. Louis will and, therefore, against the estate.

However, I think Hawley is wrong here. Why would Norris, who lived in New Orleans and made his deposition there (as far as I know) be represented by a Baltimore lawyer? It’s more likely, in my mind, that Norris was Widner’s witness rather than Widner was Norris’s lawyer.

Wolf! Something tells me your attacks on Roger and I mean we are not on your Christmas list. I think you need a hug.

You have given lots of fodder, so I'll start at the beginning. I never said that Widner was Norris' attorney. That's asinine.

There were two probates going on at the time that the St. Louis judge had to hear about, the 1903 will and the 1901 Baltimore will. Widner's testimony dealt with the 1901 will. He was asked about what he thought about Dr. T's state of mind in 1902, meaning he was not representing someone, but was an eyewitness.

So all readers. Post 1 of Wolf's has been debunked. I'll respond to your next anger-filled (thus biased) posts later.

More to come.

Mike

[mklhawley]

It’s funny. I wasn’t sure what kind of response I would get by pointing out that Tim Riordan was the first person to discover, and discuss, the St. Louis Probate Court records. Sadly, I had a pretty good idea what I wouldn’t get: embarrassment, shamefacedness, apology, retraction of claims. It seems that in today’s environment anything that would take class, a sense of honour or even the simple ability to tell the truth, has disappeared. Instead we get finger pointing and pseudo-irate accusations that the man who actually was the first to discover the St. Louis probate records was a liar who hid important information (and this coming from the same Mike Hawley who got caught altering Norris’s deposition in order to make it fit with his theory). This is all classic deflection of course (which is in itself telling).

Saying that Tim should have written this, that or the other thing in his book is irrelevant as it’s beside the point (the point, let me remind everyone, being: why is Mike Hawley claiming someone else’s discovery?). As I said, it’s a classic deflection as in ‘don’t blame me, blame the victim. It’s their fault.’ And, apparently, Mike needs the deflection because he seems to have actually known that Tim was the first to make this discovery.

I never claimed to have found them. That was Michael Sandhopp after he contacted me and asked me what he should do. Facts are facts. So, if Riordan did indeed find these documents, then he would have indeed read the numerous eyewitness accounts of Tumblety's bitter hatred of women. Problem: The Prince of Quacks states that the rumors of Tumblety's hatred all stem from Dunham's Dec 1, 1888, interview. 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. Riordan had to prop up Widner, because he wanted to demonstrate that Simpson was a inexperienced. Riordan would have found out that Widner contradicts his book AND that Simpson was older that Widner!

Section 1, post 2, debunked. Sorry Wolf.

[rjpalmer]

O dear, trouble in the great white north.

“In London, in 1888, Tumblety was charged with using “Force and Arms” while committing indecent assault against four men for the very same reason. If the four men were forced by Tumblety, and not willing participants, then they could testify as witnesses and not face prosecution themselves.'

Note that this conjecture is stated as fact. The police and the Crown are lying and submitting trumped-up charges, or are stupidly believing four independent victims, who themselves are lying and making trumped-up charges. It is never Tumilty, a career confidence man and swindler, who is doing the dirty deed, nor the lying. And so it goes.

Of course, Wolf presents no evidence for either scenario; it is merely his theory, his “narrative.” But it grows increasingly naive and weak the more independent victims come forward. Note, again, that Norris's accusation is necessarily independent from that of Brice, Crowley, etc., since those charges were not known until the 1990s. How many times and in how many different decades and in how many different countries does Tumilty have to be arrested for sexual assault before someone thinks that...hey....maybe... just maybe...there might be something in it? Heaven forbid.

A question worth asking: who had the power? In the world of Timothy Riordan and Wolf Vanderlinden it was the scrawny penniless 16 year old street kid, and not the 6' or 6' 1" man in his mid-50s who posed as a legitimate physician and had the wealth to either get out of Dodge or to hire the best (or slickest) lawyer money could buy. One victim was described as a "little boy." Tumilty was in his 50s. I know whom I would believe.

Meanwhile the victims--without evidence---not a shred of evidence--are dismissed as male prostitutes, liars, blackmailers, etc., because, presumably, it is perfectly okay to sexually assault a male prostitute.

“No incriminating confession there. Norris could be absolved of participation in illegal sexual activities because he was forced by Tumblety and his knife and was not a willing participant.

A ridiculous and nonsensical statement.

Absolved from what, exactly???

Where is your evidence that Tumilty was ever charged in New Orleans for this sexual assault? Where is your evidence that Norris ever filed a complaint?

Norris hardly needed to lie in order to "absolve" himself, if neither he, nor Tumilty, were ever charged or even accused of a sexual act.

So your argument is bizarre to say the least.

Like hundreds of thousands of victims of sexual assault or violence, Norris never came forward at the time. He came forward several years later, and there was no evidence of consensual anything. So the motive you theorize did not exist.

In this way the police could use the four as witnesses against Tumblety without prosecuting them, they could claim he forced them to do it. That he did actually force them is rather questionable, as he was probably paying them. It does rather raise the question as to how far the police may have been 'bending' the facts in order to charge Tumblety.

" Post by Stewart Evans, writing as “Grey Hunter.

I cannot speak for Stewart Evans, nor would he want me to, but this statement was made long before the new information was made available. I'd be curious if he still considers this the most likely scenario. Yet, being an honest man and beyond reproach, he clearly states this as a working theory ("rather questionable" and "probably" and it “raises the question”) and not, as you do, as a fact, or a theory so utterly powerful that to argue against it is some sort of outrage.

Either way, I think you are misusing the post. My impression (and I could be wrong) is that it was a reaction to a number of ridiculous theorists who were fond of speculating that Tumilty was never a police suspect to begin with, but some sort of postmodern press invention. The point being that the eight different charges were complex and extreme enough that it surely signaled that Scotland Yard (and it WAS Scotland Yard and not a divisional investigation) was VERY interested in this strange American at the height of a murder inquiry, and thus were doing everything in their power to keep him in the UK. That, I believe, was the point, and I am delighted that you now accept the argument, for it does raise some rather interesting questions.

Meanwhile, any theory about the specific charges in1888 would have to be revised in light of new facts and new documentation. That's what is known as history, Wolf. It evolves.

There are a number of further points I would like to address, but would prefer to make them in a more structured and academic setting and don’t wish to get bogged down in pointless internet sniping.

So let me end by with this:

The first, strongest, and most obvious defense of the serial sex offender is that all his disgusting acts were "consensual." We usually leave it up to the offender to make this argument, but hey, I guess a Ripperologist will serve in a pinch.

[rjpalmer]

I can’t resist one further point.

How likely or logical is it to supposed that a male prostitute would run to the police and claim that he had been sexually assaulted?

This is what I am supposed to believe.

How often does this happen in the real world? In the 19th Century?

Ever?

In the general scheme of things, the male prostitute does not view the police as his friend nor his protector.

Indeed, running to the police would open himself to unwanted notoriety, but (probably) very little sympathy and a great deal of futility.

It also would be counterproductive to one’s livelihood.

To accuse your john of abuse is career ending, so it is far better to take your lumps and go back to work. I doubt there is a prostitute in the world that hasn’t been beaten to a pulp.

There were professional blackmailers, of course, but this was quite a different racket from the run-of-the-mill impoverished streetwalker.

But in at least one instance, I am being told—without evidence---that a young accuser who ran to the police with a story of being sexually assaulted by Francis T was a boy prostitute. Not by the police mind you, or any documentation, but by a modern historian.

I don’t buy it, but I do acknowledge that it makes for a convenient and almost impenetrable defense.

[mklhawley]

ory).


Tim’s bibliography in Prince of Quacks (McFarland & Company, 2009) page 225, under the subheading “Public Records,” has this: “St. Louis City Probate Court. 1903 – 1908 probate Papers Related to the Estate of Francis Tumblety, case no. 29083.”
Is this the correct title and case number?

Under “Notes” for “Chapter 16,” note #17 on page 223, Tim states “William Duvall gave a deposition on his relationship to Tumblety and the doctor’s time in Baltimore on March 20, 1905. See Case #29083, St. Louis Probate Court.”
Did Duvall give such a deposition on that date and is it in the case files?

Note # 18 on page 233, Tim states “…Kemp’s deposition was taken on March 20, 1905, Case #29083, St. Louis Probate Court.”
Did Joseph R. Kemp give a deposition on that date and is it in the case files?

Note # 19 on page 233, Tim states “Simpson’s testimony is in a deposition taken on March 20, 1905, Case #29083, St. Louis Probate Court.”
Did Robert H. Simpson give a deposition on that date and is it in the case files?

On page 199 Tim writes “Daniel O’Donovan, owner of the United Engraving Company, recalled his first meeting with Tumblety: ‘I think he had been watching our place for a couple of days from the outside, and I thought he was a beggar, and wanted to hold me up. He came in and wanted to buy two or three little things, I don’t know what they were, odds and ends of stationary, and he took a lot of my time, and I bothered with him because he appeared to be poor and unfortunate; I thought I was patronizing him, and as subsequent events proved he thought he was patronizing me.’(21)”
Note # 21 on page 233, states “O’Donovan’s testimony is in a deposition taken on March 20, 1905, Case #29083, St. Louis Probate Court.”
Did Daniel O’Donovan give a deposition? Did he state the above in his deposition? Did he give such a deposition on that date and is it in the case files?

Note # 22 on page 233, states “Widner’s testimony is in a deposition taken on March 20, 1905, Case #29083, St. Louis Probate Court.”
On page 200 Tim writes about Tumblety and Frank Widner jr. He states that Tumblety went looking for his lawyers (Simpson) and couldn’t find them. He “asked one of the elevator operators to help him find an attorney that ‘had light hair and was a young man.’”
Tim also writes on pages 200/201 that “While [Tumblety] was gone, he kept up a correspondence with Widner. In later depositions, several of these letters were entered as evidence while others were specifically excluded for personal reasons….There were three envelopes and two letters entered and only the signatures on the letters and the address on one envelope were in Tumblety’s handwriting.
“His letter to Widner from New Orleans states that he was sick with rheumatism but as soon as he felt better he would come to Baltimore with ‘all the necessary papers,’ and Widner should have the case continued….On May 19 he wrote to Widner to apologize for not calling on him yet. He stated that he was recovering from a bad cold and hoped to be in Baltimore soon….The final time Widner saw the doctor was on October 18, 1902. When Widner had not heard from Tumblety for a month, he wrote a letter in care of Baltimore general delivery on November 19 which was eventually returned as unclaimed…”.

By the way, you quote Riordan's Prince of Quacks as if it was fact. I have actually found numerous more mistakes. Case in point:

Riordan: “Duvall introduced Tumblety to Robert H. Simpson, a young lawyer...”

No, Robert Simpson knew Tumblety for years, and was introduced to him by his mother. Simpson knew Tumblety's wealthy background. Riordan was attempting to say Simpson thought Tumblety was lying about his wealth.

More to come, Wolf! Thanks for all the cracks.

Mike

[rjpalmer]

It’s funny. I wasn’t sure what kind of response I would get by pointing out that Tim Riordan was the first person to discover, and discuss, the St. Louis Probate Court records. Sadly, I had a pretty good idea what I wouldn’t get: embarrassment, shamefacedness, apology, retraction of claims. It seems that in today’s environment anything that would take class, a sense of honour or even the simple ability to tell the truth, has disappeared...

I'm sorry. I planned on letting this go, but somehow I feel obliged to point out that this is precisely the sort of sanctimonious horse-crap that is so detrimental to the field. I don't wish to embarrass Tim Riordan, and have nothing against him personally, but Evans and Gainey used the probate records Wolf V refers to clear back in the 1990s, ten years before Prince of Quacks. Remember? Mother Bentley? The burnt carpet? The two imitation rings that Wolf called a "non-starter"?

Do you see any of those gentlemen running in and causing a fuss? I seriously doubt that the strange compulsion to try and be the first to plant their flag on Mount Ego, rather than to look dispassionately and accurately at the evidence is in their DNA.

Please Wolf, instead of trying to score some petty points, stick to the facts. Good grief. Maybe take your own advice on shamefacedness and delete post #111 as unworthy of this forum and start over? THANKS.