Tumblety: The Hidden Truth

[Howard Brown]

If he had been working with the local police for 23 years in 1907 then he started working with them in about 1884 by my maths.

Just repeating what it mentioned in the December 10th, 1907 New Orleans Times Democrat.
However, subsequent to that, the February 28, 1918 Times Picayune stated he began as a patrolman in August ( 8th ) 1880.
Take yer pick.

[Ally]

I have a horrible feeling that comment is directed at me. It would be a huge mistake to think I am doing that, but if there are holes in his evidence then others surely will pick his character or testimony apart.

No, it wasn't at all! Sorry if I left that impression.

[Ally]

Ozzy,

You misread something Jonathan had posted about Bundy and a myth that he'd been raised to think his mother was his sister. That's where I think you got it. Probably just skimmed it and conflated the two cases.

No worries, we've all done it.

[Ally]

It's almost as if he was under the impression he was giving sealed testimony. Which makes me wonder if the meat and bones of the case were sealed for a period of time and then possible a statute of limitations expired. These days in Missouri any case can be sealed via a motion leading to a court order or by the judge's discretion.

JM

That's actually a really interesting point. I wonder if there's a way to find out?

[Ally]

See I disagree about dates and times being confused being indicators of credibility. If you attempt to remember something that took place 18 or 10 years ago, you may well remember the event, if not the date. I find zero cause to doubt someone can remember an event but not precisely when it happened. I can remember verbatim conversations I had with people to the point that I can recall the inflection and what they were wearing but I could not for the life of me tell you when exactly they happened and if they happened before we had Conversation B which I also remember or Conversation C. They may have all happened in the same year or years apart. Of course I can also completely forget conversations I had with someone, but that's another issue and usually involving alcohol. When he is giving this deposition it is almost 20 years after some of the events in question. I am not surprised he doesn't have a precise and perfect timeline. I'd actually be a lot more suspicious if he DID have a precise and perfect timeline. I'd find that kind of precision far more suspicious than not being able to remember exactly what happened years ago.

[jmenges]

I think he's 95 percent truthful. I think he's five percent untruthful in attempting to cover up his own homosexual tendencies and escapades. Which frankly given the times, I excuse him for.

It's almost as if he was under the impression he was giving sealed testimony. Which makes me wonder if the meat and bones of the case were sealed for a period of time and then possible a statute of limitations expired. These days in Missouri any case can be sealed via a motion leading to a court order or by the judge's discretion.

JM

[Ozzy]

Hi Ozzy,

Tumblety was never confused about his mother and sisters, and was acutely aware of the lives of his siblings and their children. Tumblety was the 11th child, two of them brothers and the rest sisters. He came over during the Great Famine, or Potato Famine, from Ireland with mom and dad, but some of his older siblings were in the US prior to the Famine. His father died within a couple of years of arrival and mom died in 1873.

The last time Tumblety visited Rochester was around the same time his brother Lawrence died in 1898. He had been ill for a full year before his death. Tumblety outlived all of his siblings except for one, Jane. She died in 1904.

Sincerely,

Mike

Not sure what I was thinking. I done a word search for "mother" in all the posts before mine and can't find a single instance. Maybe I read mother = sister in another thread, or maybe a totally different website's forum, and then posted in the wrong thread/website!

[David Orsam]

So... I mean...basically attempting to pick apart Norris's character or testimony seems an exercise in futility.

I have a horrible feeling that comment is directed at me. It would be a huge mistake to think I am doing that, but if there are holes in his evidence then others surely will pick his character or testimony apart.

The timing of the comment as to when Tumblety spoke of a desire to disembowel prostitutes is rather important, especially if he said it before 1888. It's a key piece of evidence that points to Tumblety as Jack the Ripper. Not everyone, I suspect, is going to accept it if there is even the slightest doubt about the matter.

[David Orsam]

I am not sure what significance anyone is finding in what his employment status was at the time. I mean regardless of whether he was or was not working as an operator, he swore under oath to the events that took place. So... what does his job at the time matter?

Well for one thing it surely helps us to date the events in question. When did he start and stop being employed by the American District Telegraph Office for example?

It would also be interesting to know, I think, if Norris was a police patrolman at the time of any of the events set out in his deposition.

There's no doubt also - and one needs to face up to it - that if he has got confused as to dates and times and places it could be said to undermine his credibility. Certainly that is the kind of stuff that one would expect to be picked up in any cross-examination for that purpose.

But that's not what I'm doing, I would like to stress. I'm just picking up on things as I see them. If there are inconsistent or confusing details it seems normal to comment on them.

[Ally]

I think he's 95 percent truthful. I think he's five percent untruthful in attempting to cover up his own homosexual tendencies and escapades. Which frankly given the times, I excuse him for.

[jmenges]

So... I mean...basically attempting to pick apart Norris's character or testimony seems an exercise in futility. He's not the only source of the newest information that's relevant to Tumblety by any means.

To me he seems absolutely truthful. He's trying his hardest to remember everything he can about Tumblety and one almost feels sorry for him.

JM

[jmenges]

This may or may not help with some small part of the chronology:

Tumblety arrived in New Orleans on the 25th of February (one week before Mardi Gras), 1881, not 1880. He checked into the City Hotel, not, as far as is known, the Charles Hotel. He eventually moved from the hotel to a small boarding house on Canal, near Dauphine Street. He left New Orleans sometime in the middle to late Summer, 1881. He does not seem to have returned to New Orleans until late in 1893.

One thing of interest. While in New Orleans in 1881 Tumblety was arrested on the 24th of March for picking the pocket of one Henry Govan. On the 29th of March the case was dismissed. Interestingly Tumblety's room was searched by the shady private detective who arrested him, D.C. O'Malley, and, later, by two New Orleans Aldermen who were ordered to do so by the judge. Tumblety's medals were mentioned but there was no mention of any knives, let alone several of them being found.

Wolf.

Norris mentions the O'Malley arrest of Tumblety "in the Customhouse" and says that the newspapers reported finding burglar tools but then corrected themselves the next day to say that they found "surgical instruments". I can't remember if Mike read this section on the show. Norris claims he saw him "that very night". Whether he meant the night of his arrest or the night after it made the papers is unclear.

JM

[jmenges]

There are several things he mentions that further indicate Norris is telling the truth. He mentions a conversation he had with Tumblety in 1901 in which they discussed T being robbed in Hot Springs. He also states that Tumblety offered to pay him an enormous amount of money to travel with him (a lot of Norris reminds me of Mark Blackburn). Norris also makes another general pronouncement about Tumblety not only hating women, but wanting to kill them. The opposing attorney is very annoyed by all of this talk of Tumblety in the 1880s and constantly objects to the line of questioning as being irrelevant, but the judge allows it to continue. At one point Norris is being hard pressed by the attorney to go into even further detail as to Tumblety's bad character and Norris says he might be able to think of more instances if he was allowed some time to think more about it. "I don't know exactly what you want to prove, but I might be able to get at it that way" i.e. relax and try to jog his own memory.

The deposition gives me two immediate impressions. 1- that Norris isn't the sharpest pencil in the box and 2- the attorney for the side contesting the will were trying to squeeze every last bit of dirt on T out of him.

JM

[Ally]

I am not sure what significance anyone is finding in what his employment status was at the time. I mean regardless of whether he was or was not working as an operator, he swore under oath to the events that took place. So... what does his job at the time matter?

Even if Norris is thrown out, we have other people testifying about the micro-penis at various times and in various cities. So basically, the micro-penis is established.

If Norris is lying about being forced (which frankly I think he is anyway) well then there goes a corroboration of Tumblety's violent tendencies, which is irrelevant regardless, because Tumblety wasn't the Ripper.

So... I mean...basically attempting to pick apart Norris's character or testimony seems an exercise in futility. He's not the only source of the newest information that's relevant to Tumblety by any means.

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

This may or may not help with some small part of the chronology:

Tumblety arrived in New Orleans on the 25th of February (one week before Mardi Gras), 1881, not 1880. He checked into the City Hotel, not, as far as is known, the Charles Hotel. He eventually moved from the hotel to a small boarding house on Canal, near Dauphine Street. He left New Orleans sometime in the middle to late Summer, 1881. He does not seem to have returned to New Orleans until late in 1893.

One thing of interest. While in New Orleans in 1881 Tumblety was arrested on the 24th of March for picking the pocket of one Henry Govan. On the 29th of March the case was dismissed. Interestingly Tumblety's room was searched by the shady private detective who arrested him, D.C. O'Malley, and, later, by two New Orleans Aldermen who were ordered to do so by the judge. Tumblety's medals were mentioned but there was no mention of any knives, let alone several of them being found.

Wolf.