This simply won't do, Wolf, it simply won't do.
It is not historically valid to refer to one crooked lawyer in a long forgotten probate case (among hundreds of thousands of other probate cases without a hint of impropriety) and then transpose this slur onto the present case. You are still require to show evidence or even plausibility of corruption.
Many years ago I had the pleasure of knowing, for a short time, a man with many years of experience on the bench. He once told me in that in all the dozens upon dozens of probate cases brought before him over the years, in only one single solitary instance did a will go uncontested. It is an extremely common event.
Michael Fitzsimmons was a highly respected man in Rochester, New York. He was well-read, a member of two literary societies, the Shakespeare club, and was active in local politics. There is no hint of any criminal record on his part. The mere fact that he pursued this probabate case on behalf of his extended family--who were the rightful heirs-- is not the least bit untoward or suspicious, and the idea that he and his lawyers would pay-off dozens of different witnesses and parade them before the court without a peep of it coming to the attention of the opposing legal council--not to mention the judge--- doesn't strike me as a working theory based on "healthy skepticism" but, rather, wild conjecture.
By the way, what Wolf V. forgets to meniton is that we know that Charles Dunham was involved in falsfying evidence BECAUSE HE WAS CAUGHT OUT AND EXPOSED.
Not a peep of that it the present case, of course.
But let's chose a different angle. The average citizen in the 1905 was pretty naive about sexuality and certainly about homosexuality, etc. There are 1,001 different ways to claim a guy is crazy, and make it sound pretty darn plausible. But Mike FitzSimmons and his lawyers just happen to come up with the unheard of diagnosis of hermaphroditism and figured that this was the sure fire way of proving that the old guy was nuts?? Are you kidding me? We are supposed to believe that they hoped the judge might have read Krafft-Ebing (in the original German, no doubt) and would make the remarkable leap that this was sure fire proof that Frank Tumilty was mentally unfit to make out a will? If that's plausible, I'm Donald Swanson.
I await the evidence.