Tumblety - Hermaphrodite.

[Steadmund Brand]

Hi again Brian,

When someone here mentions "secret squirrel" evidence that they can't talk about due to "complicated" reasons my eyes tend to roll and it's "oh aye here we go again Diaryesque musings", but as these are Saint Louis County legal documents, I totally understand why things would be complicated and I am content to wait for further details.




I'm not sure the evidence presented really advances FT's candidacy as the ripper...if you believe he was a impotent male using the knife as a phallic symbol it may do, if you think Jack was a rapist/killer then I think this evidence almost rules Tumblety out.

Really interesting stuff and makes Tumblety an even more fascinating character, irrespective of his candidacy as the Whitechapel murderer...I look forward to hearing and reading more.

Thank you for understanding.... it is not an excuse to hold anything back... but was an agreement made between parties at the time...so we could only discuss some of the info at the time of that podcast.. I wish it were not that way.. but we are gentlemen and when we agree to something that means something to us.

The intersexed thing I believe does NOTHING for his candidacy as the Ripper...however, some of his statements and actions do, and the testimony of his behavior etc....and the fact that he was considered a legit suspect by multiple Scotland yard folks....

as Mike has said many time... if these were indeed sex crimes (as many people believe they were) then Tumblety IS NOT THE RIPPER...but if they are anger retaliatory or..well something even more sinister then he is still a viable suspect... that is up for debate I agree


Thank you again... he was a fascinating character..my research into him had nothing at all to do with the Ripper connection...but many other areas of his life.. which I am compiling now... hopefully more to come on that as well

Steadmund (Brian) Brand

[jmenges]

To further clarify, certain information contained in the St. Louis legal documents were withheld from the first portion of the interview after I consulted with the powers that be at Casebook in order to avoid any legal issues. We were ultimately given permission to release that info after waiting for two weeks. Which is why the show is the joining of two separate interviews. Of course there is information Mike has discovered subsequent to the airing of the podcast and items he wanted to save for his book, but in general the 'complicated' reasoning behind keeping information secret was all taking place behind the scenes and was resolved prior to me releasing the episode.

JM

[Steadmund Brand]

Thanks Jonathan.. How fun that was eh??

[jmenges]

A lot of Rippercast "firsts" took place during the planning, recording, editing and releasing of that show.

JM

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Hi Dave.

If you are disputing the evidence presented in the podcast can you enlighten me as to why we should doubt it?

The thing is, this information is not from some Victorian newspaper hack trying to turn a coin...this is evidence presented in court, before a judge (I assume?) under oath? By people with no reason to lie.

This could be the most unbiased account of Tumblety we have to date.

I think the reason why you, and everyone else, should look upon this information with a healthy dose of scepticism is that there seems to be little understanding of what these documents actually are. What their real purpose was and what they were intended to prove in a court of law.

I see this illustrated in your posts above. “This information is not from some Victorian newspaper hack trying to turn a coin.” And yet it is all about Tumblety family members trying to get their hands on his money. “Unbiased account?” Far from it. It was as biased as they could make it.

Cut out of the will, having lost at every legal turn and having exhausted all legal recourse, they had only one option left to them: attempt to prove that Tumblety was not mentally competent to make a legal and binding will. In order to get their hands on a share of his money members of his own family had to prove in a court of law that Tumblety was insane. It was either that or get nothing.

In order to “prove” that Tumblety was not mentally competent it was revealed in testimony that he was an homosexual – in 1905, the time of the trial, homosexuality was seen as a form of insanity.
Tumblety was “revealed” in testimony to be a “morphadite” – in 1905 hermaphroditism, or morphaditism, were linked to insanity.
Tumblety supposedly suffered from tertiary effects of syphilis – syphilis ate away at the brain over time causing insanity.
Tumblety was said to possibly be Jack the Ripper – Jack the Ripper was considered the epitome of the psychopathic sexual killer, a killer discussed in Krafft-Ebing’s ground breaking work Psychopathia Sexualis, for those who needed to connect the Ripper with medical proof of insanity.

There seems to be a certain naïve belief that because witnesses gave evidence under oath, and in front of a judge, that they would only tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. That no one, when a cut of a large fortune was at stake, would ever lie. And yet the testimony of Richard Norris appears to be full of lies. In fact, it appears that Norris was stating that he discussed the Whitechapel Murders with Tumblety in 1881, 7 years before they actually happened, which is a neat trick.

Also, although I haven’t read the 900 pages of legal documents I do know that the trial did include testimony from some of the staff of the hospital in St. Louis, where Tumblety spent his last days, that refuted some of the claims made against Tumblety (presumably the physical descriptions). I haven’t heard anyone discuss, let alone mention this, but if true someone was lying before a judge and while under oath…but that would never happen, would it?

Wolf.

[Steadmund Brand]

Hi Dave.





I think the reason why you, and everyone else, should look upon this information with a healthy dose of scepticism is that there seems to be little understanding of what these documents actually are. What their real purpose was and what they were intended to prove in a court of law.

I see this illustrated in your posts above. “This information is not from some Victorian newspaper hack trying to turn a coin.” And yet it is all about Tumblety family members trying to get their hands on his money. “Unbiased account?” Far from it. It was as biased as they could make it.

Cut out of the will, having lost at every legal turn and having exhausted all legal recourse, they had only one option left to them: attempt to prove that Tumblety was not mentally competent to make a legal and binding will. In order to get their hands on a share of his money members of his own family had to prove in a court of law that Tumblety was insane. It was either that or get nothing.

In order to “prove” that Tumblety was not mentally competent it was revealed in testimony that he was an homosexual – in 1905, the time of the trial, homosexuality was seen as a form of insanity.
Tumblety was “revealed” in testimony to be a “morphadite” – in 1905 hermaphroditism, or morphaditism, were linked to insanity.
Tumblety supposedly suffered from tertiary effects of syphilis – syphilis ate away at the brain over time causing insanity.
Tumblety was said to possibly be Jack the Ripper – Jack the Ripper was considered the epitome of the psychopathic sexual killer, a killer discussed in Krafft-Ebing’s ground breaking work Psychopathia Sexualis, for those who needed to connect the Ripper with medical proof of insanity.

There seems to be a certain naïve belief that because witnesses gave evidence under oath, and in front of a judge, that they would only tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. That no one, when a cut of a large fortune was at stake, would ever lie. And yet the testimony of Richard Norris appears to be full of lies. In fact, it appears that Norris was stating that he discussed the Whitechapel Murders with Tumblety in 1881, 7 years before they actually happened, which is a neat trick.

Also, although I haven’t read the 900 pages of legal documents I do know that the trial did include testimony from some of the staff of the hospital in St. Louis, where Tumblety spent his last days, that refuted some of the claims made against Tumblety (presumably the physical descriptions). I haven’t heard anyone discuss, let alone mention this, but if true someone was lying before a judge and while under oath…but that would never happen, would it?

Wolf.

well...to be fair I even said on the podcast that it was testimony to prove he was not of sound mind... however Wolf is trying to make it sound like we are hiding that fact...but I have ALWAYS been open about that.. but it's a distraction from the point

you also state "In fact, it appears that Norris was stating that he discussed the Whitechapel Murders with Tumblety in 1881, 7 years before they actually happened, which is a neat trick. " well that is WONG.. and I have explained this multiple times..it just seems you don't want to listen.... the testimony Norris gives is testimony about all the years he knew Tumblety....not just what happened in 1881..but thru all the years he knew him...it is a rambling and confusing testimony to be sure...but it's because, in my opinion, because he was extremely nervous.. because he admits in it he was (or at least for "favors" was) homosexual....and other unsavory things he was involved in... things that could have cost him his wife and career...he stood to lose a lot and gain nothing (he wasn't in the will and wasn't claiming he should be) so... why would he lie and admit these things about himself...

I am not trying to pick fights or bash for the sake of it...not my goal, not what I do research for... question, please I encourage EVERYONE to.. that is how truth is discovered...but questioning what has already been questioned.. over and over to try and change the answer is not the way to do it

Steadmund Brand

[Abby Normal]

well...to be fair I even said on the podcast that it was testimony to prove he was not of sound mind... however Wolf is trying to make it sound like we are hiding that fact...but I have ALWAYS been open about that.. but it's a distraction from the point

you also state "In fact, it appears that Norris was stating that he discussed the Whitechapel Murders with Tumblety in 1881, 7 years before they actually happened, which is a neat trick. " well that is WONG.. and I have explained this multiple times..it just seems you don't want to listen.... the testimony Norris gives is testimony about all the years he knew Tumblety....not just what happened in 1881..but thru all the years he knew him...it is a rambling and confusing testimony to be sure...but it's because, in my opinion, because he was extremely nervous.. because he admits in it he was (or at least for "favors" was) homosexual....and other unsavory things he was involved in... things that could have cost him his wife and career...he stood to lose a lot and gain nothing (he wasn't in the will and wasn't claiming he should be) so... why would he lie and admit these things about himself...

I am not trying to pick fights or bash for the sake of it...not my goal, not what I do research for... question, please I encourage EVERYONE to.. that is how truth is discovered...but questioning what has already been questioned.. over and over to try and change the answer is not the way to do it

Steadmund Brand

exactly Stead
I was thinking the same thing about Norris-he has everything to lose nothing to gain-hes not in danger of losing anything in the will. A point Wolf conveniently leaves out. But then I'm sure someone could argue that he was being paid by the family to lie. and therein lies the slippery slope of speculation.
when in doubt stick to the known facts.

[jmenges]

I believe the reason behind the testimony- to prove T was insane- was discussed on the show. It was also acknowledged that they failed in their effort. I also recall suggesting these various witnesses could have been paid for their testimony although there is no evidence to suggest either way. Ulterior motives could have been at play here and so I'm in agreement with Wolf on this point.

JM

[DirectorDave]

Thanks for the reply again Wolf.

What you are suggesting is a conspiracy involving ex-lovers to undertakers...I think we are getting into JFK territory where everyone has to be involved for this conspiracy to work.

I was reading that Tumblety had a great hatred of women, especially the prostitute classes 20 years back, and he was undoubtedly homosexual so you are suggesting that an outlandish lie about him being intersex was added in just to sweeten the deal? Why? Tumblety was enough of a deviant to link him to madness without having to make stuff up.

There is a brilliant book by Umberto Eco..."The name of the rose" Hollywood for once made a pretty good attempt at making this into a film, the lead William of Baskerville played by Sean Connery.

Baskerville...the only other place I have heard that name is Sherlock Holmes most famous case "The hound of the Baskervilles" and indeed William was named after this in homage to the great detective.

The most quoted line from Sherlock? "Elementary my dear Watson" or perhaps "When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains no matter how improbable must be the truth"...great stuff!

However that is only half the story...his name is actually a portmanteau of two characters not one, the other being William of Ockham a 12/13th century monk and philosophiser who had a different axiom on problem solving...."Ockham's Razor".

This is like the other side of the coin to Sherlock's "eliminating..impossible..must be true" it states (and I'm paraphrasing from memory here) That the theory with the least amount of assumptions is probably true.

Sherlock is the inventive scribblings of a Scotsman...William of Ockham was a real living person who observed human nature at it's base level without all the misdirection of modern-day life.

There are many pretending to be Sherlock on here coming up with ever more elaborate theories and stating "if you can't disprove it then you cant rule it out"...take a look at the GSG thread and the outlandish theories being put forward about an apron to observe this.

The quiet measured common sense of William of Ockham tells me that the people on the stand in court were probably telling the truth.

[Steadmund Brand]

it was discussed... and I have always said it was to try to prove him insane..(which I believe he was...but was not proven) and I agree that some witness could have been paid and bribed...but in the case of Norris... he had far more to lose than to gain....they wouldn't have offered him THAT much money.. so in that respect I am in agreement (somewhat) with both Wolf and Jonathan.. what I don't agree with is the accusation that I would leave things out to make a case that isn't there, it was obvious that this was the family going after the loot.. but that doesn't make it all rubbish... much the same way it doesn't make it all 100% true...and you can tell when reading it that some people are full of crap.. and others come across very reliable...and Norris... come across terrified...which makes me lean more towards truthful... in some respect...only because he incriminates himself....he even tries to back peddle at one point trying to making himself seem innocent.. or not "compliant" it's laughable really

Steadmund Brand

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

I find it interesting that in a fight for a piece of Tumblety's fortune, a fight that went on for many years, and cost a small fortune in itself, the argument is made that offering money for testimony would be unthinkable. That seems incredibly naive.

There are many examples of lawyers and paid witnesses who lied on the stand in open court during legal battles over wills. For example Charles A. Dunham, the man who wrote at least one bogus article, and probably more, about Tumblety in 1888, made his living that way. Were his many cons unthinkable conspiracies? I suppose some obviously would think so, but that doesn't mean they never happened.

Also, I didn't say that it was a lie that Tumblety was an homosexual. I said that it was revealed in court that he was one as part of the strategy to prove that Tumblety was insane.

Wolf.

[rjpalmer]

In all my hundreds of Tumblety newspaper clippings I can find no indication that anyone stated that Tumblety spoke with a “woman’s voice.”

"His eyes are steely blue, and he gazed steadily at nothing, as he spoke in a weak, effeminate voice." --Washington Post November 18, 1890.

But of course it was all part of the conspiracy.

[Steadmund Brand]

I find it interesting that in a fight for a piece of Tumblety's fortune, a fight that went on for many years, and cost a small fortune in itself, the argument is made that offering money for testimony would be unthinkable. That seems incredibly naive.

There are many examples of lawyers and paid witnesses who lied on the stand in open court during legal battles over wills. For example Charles A. Dunham, the man who wrote at least one bogus article, and probably more, about Tumblety in 1888, made his living that way. Were his many cons unthinkable conspiracies? I suppose some obviously would think so, but that doesn't mean they never happened.

Also, I didn't say that it was a lie that Tumblety was an homosexual. I said that it was revealed in court that he was one as part of the strategy to prove that Tumblety was insane.

Wolf.

Again.... who said that "the argument is made that offering money for testimony would be unthinkable. That seems incredibly naive. " or are you just putting words on peoples mouths... I have said repeatedly that some of this was a money grab.. yet you keep coming back with the same thing.. repeating it wont make it true..as I said.. lets stick to FACTS

Steadmund Brand

[mklhawley]

I find it interesting that in a fight for a piece of Tumblety's fortune, a fight that went on for many years, and cost a small fortune in itself, the argument is made that offering money for testimony would be unthinkable. That seems incredibly naive.

There are many examples of lawyers and paid witnesses who lied on the stand in open court during legal battles over wills. For example Charles A. Dunham, the man who wrote at least one bogus article, and probably more, about Tumblety in 1888, made his living that way. Were his many cons unthinkable conspiracies? I suppose some obviously would think so, but that doesn't mean they never happened.

Also, I didn't say that it was a lie that Tumblety was an homosexual. I said that it was revealed in court that he was one as part of the strategy to prove that Tumblety was insane.

Wolf.

Wolf! How's it going! Long time no hear! Not sure if you want to push this, since your conspiracy theory has gaping holes in it. Roger just demonstrated your cherry picking of the evidence. There was evidence that Tumblety had a female-like voice. There is more, but I'm not sure you want me to demonstrate more of your Tumblety claims don't fit the facts. Case in point, your claim that Dunham's interview about Tumblety being bogus actually falls flat in face of the new evidence. Sorry Wolf. Honestly Wolf, do you want to push it? Carrie Brown needs some attention.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Abby Normal]

I find it interesting that in a fight for a piece of Tumblety's fortune, a fight that went on for many years, and cost a small fortune in itself, the argument is made that offering money for testimony would be unthinkable. That seems incredibly naive.

There are many examples of lawyers and paid witnesses who lied on the stand in open court during legal battles over wills. For example Charles A. Dunham, the man who wrote at least one bogus article, and probably more, about Tumblety in 1888, made his living that way. Were his many cons unthinkable conspiracies? I suppose some obviously would think so, but that doesn't mean they never happened.

Also, I didn't say that it was a lie that Tumblety was an homosexual. I said that it was revealed in court that he was one as part of the strategy to prove that Tumblety was insane.

Wolf.

and just as I predicted. so now that yourealize Norris had nothing to gain and everything to lose since hes not in the will, hes now got to be paid off for lying. and down the slippery slope of endless speculation we go. you can say anybody is lying about anything if it suits your argument.
Its not being "incredibly naïve" to favor evidence over speculation-its just correct and reasonable.