Tweet
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:
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.
Here it is again:
Originally posted by Wolf Vanderlinden
View Post
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.
Comment