Tumblety - Hermaphrodite.

[jmenges]

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

[Ally]

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?

[jmenges]

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

[mklhawley]

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

[GUT]

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.

[Ally]

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?

[mklhawley]

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?

[mklhawley]

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.

[rjpalmer]

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:

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

[Ally]

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.

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.

[Ally]

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.

[mklhawley]

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

[Ally]

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??

[rjpalmer]

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."

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.

[Ally]

Er.... nothing has actually been settled.

At all.