Tumblety - Hermaphrodite.

[rjpalmer]

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:

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.

[Ally]

Er.... nothing has actually been settled.

At all.

[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]

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??

[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]

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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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?

[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?

[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.

[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

[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

[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?