Tumblety - Hermaphrodite.

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Hi Brian.

Here are the problems that I have with Norris and his statement:

Norris, by the way, worked for the New Orleans Police Department for decades with his brother. They received awards for their achievements and were very respected. Norris was responsible for the classified cable transmissions going to the Chief of Police. He does not sound like a liar to me.
Mike Hawley Post #37.

I’m glad I wasn’t drinking anything when I read this or I would have done a spit take. Would this be the same New Orleans Police Department that was called the most corrupt in America? There have been several books written about the legendary corruption, bribery, kickbacks, protection rackets, vote rigging etc. of the New Orleans Police in the late 1800’s/turn of the last century, when Norris was working there. Here are only a couple of samples easily found on the internet:

“By the late 19th century, the New Orleans police force had deteriorated into a notoriously corrupt, undersized, and underfunded organization.”
The Social History of Crime and Punishment in America: An Encyclopedia
Edited by Wilbur R. Miller, SAGE Publications, 2012.

“When national Republican leaders refused to back its legitimacy in 1877, Redeemers in Louisiana not only disbanded the remarkable experiment [in racially integrated policing] but also allowed the city police force to deteriorate until it became by the end of his period one of the most corrupt, violent, and disgraceful departments in the nation. In a bargain to keep taxes low and the black population downtrodden, city authorities allowed the police to ally themselves with organized crime and brutal oppressors of African Americans. In 1900, with one of their usual overreactions, New Orleans police officers ignited the Robert Charles Riot that heralded the twentieth century's succession of massive race riots.”
Review on h-net.org by Joseph Logsdon of Dennis C. Rousey’s Policing the Southern City: New Orleans 1805 – 1889, Louisiana State University Press, 1996.

Pointing out that Norris worked for the N.O.P.D., at a time when massive department wide corruption was the norm, is an indictment of his character rather than evidence of his trustworthiness.

Wolf.

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

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…
Steadmund Brand Post #21.

…but in the case of Norris…he had far more to lose than to gain…they wouldn’t have offered him THAT much money…and Norris…come[s] across terrified…which make me lean even more towards truthful…in some respect…only because he incriminates himself…
Steadmund Brand Post #25.

I suppose that hypothetically Norris might have stood to lose a lot but, realistically, did he? He wasn’t on trial, he wasn’t being grilled or examined for being an homosexual, he worked for the police and he was only giving a deposition in a probate case that was going to take place in another State (where, presumably, no one cared). All he had to do to not incriminate himself was to not incriminate himself. It was that simple.

You state that “he admits in it he was (or at least for “favors” was) homosexual.” Does he admit that? Openly and with unambiguous words that could lead to his arrest? Something like “I am an homosexual and have had sex with male partners on several occasions? I haven’t actually read where he does admit this in words that could be legally used against him, although, admittedly, you have read the full deposition while I haven’t.

What I have read is that Norris seems to do a lot of covering his ass (pun intended) like where he says that Tumblety locked the door to his room, pulled a knife on him and then turned the gas low. Norris stated that Tumblety said “You cannot get out of this room while I have this,” meaning the knife. Tumblety then fondled Norris and exposed himself. Norris, therefore, was helpless because Tumblety was armed but he “made up my mind right then and there that he would have to kill me, as I don’t go up against those kind of people.”

No incriminating confession there. Norris could be absolved of participation in illegal sexual activities because he was forced by Tumblety and his knife and was not a willing participant. This allowed him to speak about what went on without incriminating himself.

In London, in 1888, Tumblety was charged with using “Force and Arms” while committing indecent assault against four men for the very same reason. If the four men were forced by Tumblety, and not willing participants, then they could testify as witnesses and not face prosecution themselves. It was, like Norris’s phantom knives, a lie in order for the police and Crown to get what they wanted.

If Norris didn’t actually incriminate himself then it proves what I said earlier. If he did actually incriminate himself, and he was in danger of losing everything, then why wasn’t he arrested, put on trial and lose his family and his career? It’s a bit of a Catch 22 then, where Norris, hypothetically, might have got into trouble but, in actual fact, didn’t.

Wolf.

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

You mention that Norris seemed to be nervous when giving his deposition. Actually, you say that “in your opinion” Norris was “extremely nervous” because he was admitting his homosexuality (although it strikes me that he was trying very hard not to admit to his homosexuality) and that this was one of the reasons why his testimony was rambling and confused. So, no actual evidence but in your opinion this is what was going on. Well, that’s hard to prove if you are only offering your opinions (as you are).

Here’s my opinion, neither more nor less valid than yours: Norris, if he was nervous, was nervous because he was lying while giving his deposition and was afraid that he might get caught out in a lie. What would that have meant legally? Probably nothing, not even a slap on the wrist, but it would mean that Norris wouldn’t get paid for his testimony.

The truth, however, will probably never be known and the answer might lie with some combination of Norris’s trying to point to Tumblety’s homosexuality, while hiding his own, while trying to work in as many falsehoods as he could about Tumblety that would satisfy the lawyers trying to get the St. Louis will annulled.

Wolf.

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

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’s not that I don’t want to listen it’s that telling me something over and over isn’t the same as convincing me that you’re right, especially if you’ve read Norris’s deposition. In fact, in order for you to be right you have to ignore what Norris himself actually said (congratulations, you are now a true, bona fide Tumblety supporter).

Norris states that he met Tumblety, he thought, “in 1880, during Mardi-Gras” (it was actually 1881). So there is a starting date for what comes next. Norris then tells an almost uninterrupted story about the night of that first meeting:

He met Tumblety at the St. Charles Theatre during Mardi Gras (late February to early March), Tumblety sat next to him. Norris and his friend went for drinks during the intermission, Tumblety followed them and introduced himself. Tumblety took Norris to Lamothe’s for supper and asked him to go to his room “at the St. Charles Hotel” so that Norris could write a letter for him. Norris begged off saying it was late. However, Norris then states that “I excused myself to him, and went on the side, and told my friend, ‘I will take a chance, I haven’t got anything, and I will take a chance and write this letter for him,’ and I asked my friend to wait for me” (taken in context, the same friend, on the same night, that Norris met Tumblety at the theatre). Norris went up to Tumblety’s hotel room at “the St. Charles hotel,” where Tumblety ordered beer and, Norris thought, tried to get him drunk. Tumblety showed Norris a large trunk and “a velvet vest which had, I judge, four – three or four medals on each side – they looked to me like gold medals. He told me they were awarded to him by the English Government.” He also saw, Norris claimed, “a sort of tray in the trunk, and there were all sorts of large knives in there, surgical instruments – that is, I did not know what they were at the time.”

At this point Norris digresses for the first time by mentioning that “After that he was arrested, supposed to be a bad character; it was a sort of put up job at the time, to find out what he really was.” This references Tumblety’s arrest on 24 March, 1881 for picking the pocket of one Henry Govan.

Norris then returns to where he left off, with the supposed knives and the first night he met Tumblety, by stating “There were large knives in the trunk.” At this point Tumblety felt Norris’s pulse and legs, handed Norris a cigar, telling Norris to throw away the cigarette that he was smoking “saying it was bad to smoke cigarettes.” Tumblety then says to Norris “the trouble with young men are those cigarettes, and those confounded Street Walkers. He said, if he had his way they would all be disemboweled.” This causes Norris to state “Now, I read and new of the White Chapel business and did know it at the time.” “At the time,” according to Norris’s narrative, was still the night that he first met Tumblety at the theatre in 1881. 7 years BEFORE the Whitechapel Murders.

Norris then “got a little scared of this man” and “I went over to the Chief of Police, and told him of this fellow, and he told me that reminds him of the big tall man that he read of in the Chicago Herald, and Pittsburg Dispatch, as being Jack the Ripper, and I said, he answers the description. And seeing, and noticing the way he spoke, and how he acted – he never frequented the street in the daytime; he used to walk the streets all hours of the night. When I spoke to him about the numerous women that had been killed around White Chapel, he said, 'Yes, I was there when it all happened' Norris then said “Well, after he told me that, I tried to shun him, and he sent me notes and letters, and even came to the office after me.”

It was at this point that Norris starts talking generally about their time together. This is when Norris talks about Tumblety taking him to his room, locking the door and supposedly brandishing a knife in an attempt to force Norris to have sex with him, at which point Norris makes the statement that “he would have to kill me, as I don’t go up against those kind of people.” Norris also states that Tumblety exposed himself and Norris supposedly saw that he was a “morphadite.”

At this point of the story Tumblety was living in a private boarding house on Canal Street (Norris says No. 190 Canal). Tumblety moved here sometime before the 22nd of March, 1881, the day he met Henry Govan (so, again, Norris is talking about events that happened in 1881).

This is followed by the direct question to Norris “What time did all this take place?” “All this,” meaning the date of Norris’s narrative to this point.

Norris answers “This happened in 1881 or 1880.” “IN 1881 OR 1880.”

This is clear and unambiguous. There is no confusion evident in Norris’s statement up to this point. If you take Norris’s statement at face value, if you go by what Norris actually said (without tampering with the deposition, editing in words, claiming confusion were none seems evident, spinning and twisting Norris etc.) then Norris says that Tumblety talked about the Whitechapel Murders in 1881. Which is a neat trick, as I said earlier.

All of this on the same night that Norris first met Tumblety – sometime between 25 February, 1881, when Tumblety arrived in New Orleans, and the 7th of March, when Mardi Gras ended in 1881.

Since the bit about the Whitechapel Murders can’t be true, given the date, Norris is obviously lying. And what, in context, is he lying about? Tumblety’s talk about wanting to disembowel prostitutes.

Wolf.

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

By 1905, when Norris made his statement, he had been working for the New Orleans Police Department for almost 20 years. In New Orleans the police worked out of Station Houses and the newspapers contracted this to “Stations.” This is surely what Norris would have called his place of work, unless he worked at police headquarters in which case he would say “the Central Station,” as they did in New Orleans.

Now look what Norris says in this part of his deposition, after he had gone to the Chief of Police and supposedly later talked some more to Tumblety about the Whitechapel Murders,:

“Well, after he told me that, I tried to shun him, and he sent me notes and letters, and even came to the office after me.”

Tumblety “even came to the office” after him. Not to his “Station” (or Police Station, or Station House etc.), which is what he would have said if he had talked to Tumblety AFTER 1888, but to his “office.” Now look at what Norris says about where he was working in 1881:

“I was then employed by the American District Telegraph Office…”

So, one more bit of evidence showing that Norris was saying that he talked to Tumblety about the Whitechapel Murders in 1881, when he was working at the telegraph office.

And, to add to this thought, what was the likelihood that Tumblety would have gone (had he and Norris discussed the Whitechapel Murders after 1888, and Norris had somehow forgotten that he had worked for the police) to a Police Station House (you know, that place full of cops) in order to continue to badger Norris while attempting to persuade him to sleep with him? Highly unlikely, I would have thought.

Wolf.

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

I want to continue with the part in Norris’s deposition where he runs to the Chief of the New Orleans Police to talk to him about Tumblety. This:

“Now, I read and new of the White Chapel business and did know it at the time. I got a little scared of this man, and I went over to the Chief of Police, and told him of this fellow, and he told me that reminds him of the big tall man that he read of in the Chicago Herald, and Pittsburg Dispatch, as being Jack the Ripper, and I said, he answers the description.”

The illogic of all this is telling.

First of all, how is it that Norris remembers, not just the two cities the Chief mentioned, but the names of the two papers? Out of State cities and papers. Norris is giving his deposition in 1905 and remembering all the way back to 1881, 24 years earlier. That’s another neat trick. This is especially true when one realizes that Norris was wrong on a few small points, as one would expect after the passage of time.

This is more smoke and mirrors.

By mid-November of 1888 the American papers were full of stories about Tumblety the Ripper suspect, this included the New Orleans papers (which ran some lengthy articles about Tumblety), and Tumblety coverage continued almost nonstop till mid-1889. Sporadic mention of Tumblety and the Ripper Murders would continue for the rest of Tumblety’s life and even after his death.

How is it that Norris, supposedly, missed all this? Wouldn’t Norris immediately recognize his old friend Dr. Tumblety? Instead Norris claims “I got a little scared of this man, and I went over to the Chief of Police, and told him of this fellow, and he told me that reminds him of the big tall man that he read of in the Chicago Herald, and Pittsburg Dispatch, as being Jack the Ripper, and I said, he answers the description.”

Not, “Yes, I’m talking about Dr. Tumblety, the man mentioned in all the newspapers. I’ve known him for years but am now beginning to wonder about him.” Instead Norris gets suspicious of Tumblety, not because the North American newspapers were full of stories about him but because he supposedly had several surgical knives and talked about how prostitutes should be “disembowelled.” He then goes to the Chief of Police, tells him about “this fellow,” and agrees that Tumblety answers to the description of a “big tall man,” mentioned in two newspapers.

Norris is saying, in effect, that he didn’t really know Tumblety or his connection with the murders, became worried and asked the Chief of Police for his opinion about him as a possible Whitechapel Murderer. Norris then says that when he talked to Tumblety about the murders in London Tumblety responded by saying “Yes, I was there when it all happened” and so Norris states “Well, after he told me that, I tried to shun him.” He didn’t know from all the coverage that Tumblety was in London at the time of the murders?

Tumblety’s name was splashed across the headlines yet Norris missed it? Did all of Norris’s friends and family miss it too? No one pointed out to Norris that his friend, Dr. Tumblety, the man who “gave me a good time, took me to the theatre, and spent a good deal of money on me. He bought me several suits of clothes,” was mentioned in the newspapers in connection with the sensational Whitechapel Murders? Seems highly unlikely.

This all might make sense if Norris was talking about 1881, when he really didn’t know Tumblety, but not sometime after 1888, when he had supposedly known him for years. Norris is obviously making the whole thing up.

Wolf.

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

The supposed knives.

As I pointed out on the Tumblety: The Hidden Truth board, it is unlikely that Tumblety would have surgical knives with him, let alone “all sorts of large knives.”

Tumblety wasn’t an actual doctor, let alone a surgeon, something Mike Hawley seems to constantly forget. He didn’t use knives in his quack medicine business. He was a Thomsonian and Eclectic physician. He sold herbal, botanical and vegetable cures “provided by Nature.” He was, in point of fact, an herbalist but an herbalist who was pointedly against the licenced medical profession. That’s how he made his living, by touting that he used natural alternatives to harsh, even poisonous, medicines and deadly surgical operations in which anaesthetic and sterile conditions were unheard of.

“With blood our hands we never stain,” ran one of his advertisements, and, in another, one of his patients claimed he had “a large tumor of a cancerous nature removed from his head without resorting to the barbarous practice of cutting with a knife, as is usual in such cases.” This was what drew sick, desperate and scared people to his “practise”: the fact that he didn’t use knives or poisonous drugs to cure. He wasn’t likely to carry around surgical knives because his livelihood depended on his being seen to be against them and their use in medicine.

On top of this, as I pointed out, Tumblety's room in his Canal Street boarding house was searched by D.C. O'Malley, the shady detective who had arrested him after some sort of shakedown. One newspaper stated that O’Malley found “lots of burglars' tools and a box of medical instruments,” not “all sorts of” surgical knives. When O’Malley returned to see the judge, who had given O’Malley a warrant to search Tumblety’s room to bring back Tumblety’s supposed burglar’s tools, O’Malley had nothing to show. He claimed that “the burglars' tools and case of medical instruments had been removed during his absence.” (As I pointed out, why would medical instruments disappear from Tumblety’s room if, indeed, they existed?)

The judge then sent two New Orleans Aldermen to search Tumblety’s room for the supposed burglar’s tools. Not just look around but to search the room thoroughly. They reported back to the judge on what they had found (Tumblety's medals were mentioned, as were his letters and several testimonials) but there was no mention of any surgical instruments, let alone several knives, being found. And Mrs. Field, Tumblety’s landlady, stated that “there were no such articles in Dr. Tumblety’s room at any time.” She later gave a deposition about this to be used in Tumblety’s trial.

The New Orleans Police, as well as the judge, apparently, felt that the whole thing was a put up job and that O’Malley, and possibly Govan as well, were trying to shake Tumblety down. The case was thrown out of Court.

Norris’s claim that that the newspapers reported the finding of burglar tools, but then corrected themselves the next day to say that they found “surgical instruments” instead, is false.

So, speaking in 1905, Norris apparently told a lie about Tumblety owning several surgical knives – people in 1881 either couldn’t find any knives or categorically denied they ever existed. Norris then compounded this lie by adding another, sloppy, lie. But he doesn’t sound like a liar to Hawley.

Wolf.

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Finally, a few years before Norris made his deposition, in which he claimed that the Whitechapel Murders took place before 1881, an interesting newspaper story was published about Tumblety.

The article mentions Tumblety’s arrest in London on suspicion of being the Ripper, then goes on to say that “later” he was arrested in New Orleans for robbing Govan, that the British Consul came to his aid and that the case was ultimately dropped. This, of course, happened in 1881.

So, a source the newspaper described as coming from New Orleans, writing before 1905, when Norris made his deposition, stated that the Whitechapel Murders happened BEFORE Tumblety arrived in New Orleans in 1881, the exact same story and timeline Norris gave. Did Norris read this and believe that the London murders happened before Tumblety came to New Orleans in 1881 and so worked it into his story, or, as seems more likely, was the New Orleans source Norris and therefore he had told (or sold) his lies more than once?

Either way, someone was telling a tale in New Orleans before 1905 that Tumblety arrived in the city in 1881 fresh from his arrest on suspicion of being Jack the Ripper and not nervously confusing the timeline because he was trying to hide his homosexuality.

Interesting, huh.

Wolf.

[mklhawley]

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.

Mistake in your first post, and I haven't even started!

You started this.

Mike

[jmenges]

The information about T's probate and the fight over the will in Tim Riordan's 'Prince of Quacks' doesn't come close to even mentioning the issues brought out by Mike Hawley's and Sandknops disvoveries, which lead me to believe they were new. Otherwise why would Riordan ignore them? The issues that Wolf is addressing (impressively I might add)concerning the knives, and Norton's deposition are simply not in Tim's book. I like and respect Wolf, Mike and Tim but I don't like authors being accused of lying or purposefully withholding information to strengthen their case. Hopefully this informative back and forth can refrain from any more of that. I believe Tim still has an account here or myself or someone else can email him to find out what's what.

JM

[mklhawley]

Actually, Jonathan, I knew of this issue when the archivist showed conclusive evidence that the documents were not opened since 1908ish and I was not going to bring it up. . . until Wolf pointed out the discrepancy in order to claim junk.

These documents reveal conclusively that Tumblety was a hermaphrodite (multiple testimonies) AND had a bitter hatred of seductive women (this is not just in the Norris testimony by the way, which corroborates Norris' veracity. Sorry Wolf.)

Keep in mind, Wolf has an agenda to discredit Norris (while his testimony has been corroborated), because it discredits Wolf's hallmark claims, like that Tumblety did not have a bitter hatred of women and had no interest in surgery. Don't think Norris' testimony is the only testimony that dismantles Wolfs outdated claims.

You might say I have the alternative agenda to prove Norris was not lying, which is why I had passed the all of the documents onto Non-Tumblety experts who have no dog in the fight. I will not divulge these people, but one thing is for sure, they agree that Norris' testimony is credible AND that Norris meant 1881 when he saw Tumblety's surgical knives as Tumblety stated all streetwalkers should be disemboweled. You see, I was convinced good ol' Wolf was going to attempt to discredit Norris' testimony, so I place them in the hands of others.

Sorry, Wolf. I will be holding you to your claims.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Steadmund Brand]

Again, I am someone who has seen all the documents, and I was brought in from the beginning as an "ANTI" Tumblety guy.. more of a Tumblety was written off by me...and the discovery is staggering...does it say he IS the Ripper....no, does it show that he had the mentality and attitude and the means and beliefs to be Jack.. I think it does... as does everyone who has seen and read them...

Norris rambles, to be sure.. and I too believe he mixes up some facts with things he has read or heard, and also mixes up the time line of events.. but the fact that much of what he says is corroborated by others is telling

I am not saying anyone is lying or even withholding info...but the fact is, whatever Riordan did or did not have was NOT the same documents we had.. it is obvious...Personally I would like to know what it was he did have since these were all sealed since 1905 (per the archivist), sincerely, I am interested, as the research has fascinated me for the past year and a half, and I would like to see if there is something we missed.

Wolf, thank you for the respectful way in which you disagree with me...refreshing, too often these turn into petty attacks, keeping it respectful helps the cause so much more... and for me that cause is the truth, which is why, when I don't have definitive proof I state it is my opinion (educated opinion... not just wild stabs in the dark, no pun intended), and other times I let the proof speak for itself.

That being said, I do have to agree with Mike, you do seem to really want to discredit Norris outright..and I have no idea why or what purpose that serves.. question his statements, yes.. as we should, and did until we found examples of very similar statements by others... makes him seem a bit more credible eh? but to totally discredit him because you don't agree with what he says, sorry, that is no way to get to an answer.. and claiming that because others are corrupt in New Orleans therefore Norris is corrupt.. just doesn't fly... sometimes a cigar IS just a cigar (sorry inside joke about my Cigar smoking habit)

Steadmund

[jmenges]

Wolf's suggestion that Norris mistakenly believed that the Whitechapel Murders occurred years before they actually did is a plausible one, given what has been made public. Which is apparently the key here- what's been made public. What I'm hearing is basically the same mantra of "we've seen everything and you haven't" over and over again which, as an argument, all but kills off any reasonable discussion, such as Wolf is attempting, on what has been revealed. There really is no point in questioning the pro-Tumblety, pro-Norris side until we've seen all of the documents ourselves? I'm for all of them being released unfiltered if that is at all possible. Maybe after Mike's next book is released. Or...its only a half day drive to St. Louis.

Frustratingly yours,

JM

[mklhawley]

Wolf's suggestion that Norris mistakenly believed that the Whitechapel Murders occurred years before they actually did is a plausible one, given what has been made public. Which is apparently the key here- what's been made public. What I'm hearing is basically the same mantra of "we've seen everything and you haven't" over and over again which, as an argument, all but kills off any reasonable discussion, such as Wolf is attempting, on what has been revealed. There really is no point in questioning the pro-Tumblety, pro-Norris side until we've seen all of the documents ourselves? I'm for all of them being released unfiltered if that is at all possible. Maybe after Mike's next book is released. Or...its only a half day drive to St. Louis.

Frustratingly yours,

JM

Well, the publisher promised me a fall release, but editing hasn't even begun. My hands are tied. Other problems with Wolf's comments are not part of the documents, such as Tumblety not being a misogynist. This was already debunked, convincing the likes of Martin Fido and Paul Begg.

Mike

[rjpalmer]

Wolf has a major problem with his line of argument. Actually, he has several, but let me point out just one. And you don't need access to any other documentation to appreciate it.

In 1888 it was reported in the press that Tumilty (my name for him) could not be held for the Whitechapel Murders, but, instead, was to be charged with certain laws passed after the "Maiden Tribute" exposures.

That's it.

That is all that was ever reported about those specific charges, and all the focus instead shifted to his supposed connection to the WC murder case.

But note: the Maiden Tribute actually had to do with sex with an underaged girl.

After Stead's exposure in the Pall Mall Gazette the ensuing outrage eventually led to the Crimes Against the Persons Act, which famously, or infamously, dealt not only with the age of consent but also included statutes prohibiting all sexual acts other than sodomy between two consenting males.

Consent being the key word.

Anyone reading that 1888 blurb might assume, as did nearly all historians of the Whitechapel murder case, that Tumilty had been arrested for consensual sexual acts with rent boys.

Let that sink in, because--again--the relevant point is that the exact nature of these 1888 offenses were not known until the late 1990s.

People seem to be forgetting that point: the 1990s.

That is when the appropriate court calendar was rediscovered after the publication of Evans & Gainey's book.

And what turned up in those papers? O, nothing much, beyond the bald fact that Scotland Yard and the Treasury had four young men willing to swear under oath that Tumilty had sexually assaulted them with "FORCE OF ARMS."

Force of Arms: with the use of a weapon.

Doughty, Fisher, Brice, and Crowley.

So here, precisely, is where Wolf's argument starts to crumble.

Despite the fact that the relevant information was locked up in the bowels of the Old Bailey, here, in 1904, Norris is telling basically the same story as Doughty, Fisher, Brice, and Crowley.

He has been sexually assaulted by Tumilty with force of arms: specifically, a knife.

Yet, according to Wolf's theories, speculations, musings, what ever you wish to call them, Norris is a liar.

So how did Norris know?

Lucky guess?

Just a wild coincidence that 90 years later documents revealing that Tumilty had been accused of sexually assaulting four other men "with force of arms" in the 1880s would turn up to help confirm his story?

Or is it just possible that Norris is telling the truth and this was Tumilty's actual behavior in the 1880s?

A more reasonable conclusion is that Norris (as he admits) knew Tumilty over a several year period, and is simply bad with dates and is now garbling together three or four different events that happened at different times 15-20 years previously.

And it seems obvious to me that that is what is happening, because Norris refers to different heads of the NOLA police, sometimes referring to 1881 and at other times to 1891. It doesn't help that the lawyer is a lousy interviewer and his questions are all over the map. There is no reason to latch on to Wolf's sinister explanation.

It's always easy to call the victim of a sexual assault a liar. Norris, we are told, is lying. But there are four other young men in the UK stating that Tumilty sexually assaulted them, and I can name three others in the US that stated the same thing.

At what point do their stories become credible? A rather topical question here in the USA, I would think.

For make no mistake about it. Wolf dearly wants this to go away because it not only puts a knife in the hand of a police suspect in the Whitechapel Murder case, it strong suggests that he had a similar knife in London in the autumn of 1888.

Unless anyone wants to argue that the "force of arms" was a toothbrush.