Tumblety: The Hidden Truth

[Ally]

Honestly, yes that's my supposition. Or he's just a really bad story teller who confuses dates times and happening. I mean I KNOW people like this. They'll start telling you about things and they are off on one thing and then another as something else comes to mind and they can't keep a linear train of thought if their lives depended on it. And I am sure that part of the reason that there is so much obfuscation and babble and...blur... to his testimony is when you strip away all the garnish, HE doesn't come off too good in it. He's confessing to prostitution and association with unsavory sorts. And he's "respectable" now.

Here's things I don't really doubt:

1. Tumblety had a micro-penis.
2. Tumblety at some point probably said something about thinking prostitutes should be disemboweled.
3. Norris was a prostitute or as near as (though he wants to whitewash himself) and had an up close view of Tumblety's penis.

Norris has a few pieces of truth that all together add up to ...zip.

I mean, Tumblety still wasn't Jack the Ripper. So it's irrelevant. Vaguely interesting from a historical perspective, sure. But in the larger scheme of things, not really earth-shattering to the case. Interesting that this research has been uncovered and well done to the gentleman who did it (and I am sorry I can't recall his name right now as I do want to give credit where it is due... I blame the head lump) and thanks to Mike for bringing to us, but you know... Tumblety still wasn't the Ripper.

[David Orsam]

David,
I see it as meaning the first encounter in the room he begins his statement with being 1880-1881 and then he goes off on an incredible tangent. But read it as you wish, I'm only a messenger.

I don't disagree with the tangent but the events of his story must surely come back to 1880-81 at some point otherwise his last answer can't possibly make any sense.

Unless of course, as I say above, everything actually happened much later than 1880-81 and he got his years completely muddled when telling the story about 16 (?) years later.

[David Orsam]

I think part of what we must remember is much of this testimony is taking place some years after the events.

Yes of course but we are talking about two supposed separate incidents separated by about nine years here.

So one question which arises is whether, in fact, everything that Norris says in the story actually happened in, say, 1889 and he simply got the year wrong.

[jmenges]

David,
I see it as meaning the first encounter in the room he begins his statement with being 1880-1881 and then he goes off on an incredible tangent. But read it as you wish, I'm only a messenger.

JM

[Ally]

I think part of what we must remember is much of this testimony is taking place some years after the events. I have difficulty keeping track of what I did last year vs the year before. I am constantly confusing timelines in the span of two years. Multiple years is really too much to hope for. I think part of it is also contaminated not so much by the fact that he's lying, but also I think he's trying to make himself appear better in his testimony a lot, so he's hemming and hawwing and backtracking and rethinking and retracing his comments. There's way too much like "I'm not not like THAT" "I tried to distance myself" etc. So we have a very confusing tale confused by time and someone who, while they may not be lying exactly is confusing the truth by trying to throw rose water on their own selves to cover up the smell by association.

But I also think it might help once we have the book published and the availability to read all the testimony for ourselves. I would hope it will be published for reading. It's hard to follow verbally something as confusing and deliberately obfuscated as this.

[David Orsam]

See I read that as a continuation.

But at the end he is asked directly "What time did all this take place?" and he says "This happened in 1881 or 1880." So at some point after talking to Dr T about the Whitechapel Murders his story must revert back to events in 1880/81
mustn't it?

Either that or he thinks that the Whitechapel Murders occurred in 1880 and his chronology is hopelessly wrong from the start.

[jmenges]

See I read that as a continuation. He asked Tumblety about the murders, tried to shun him but was unsuccessful. It's unfortunate Norris was so scrambled that other interpretations as to the time frames are possible. Whether that's evidence of him being untruthful is also a matter of opinion. Nothing is ever easy in Ripperology.

JM

[David Orsam]

He doesn't specify. You have what I have and this section is the only time he speaks of the Whitechapel murders. If I were to guess it would be around the same period as when he spoke to Hennessy as he then describes Tumblety basically buying back his trust, which must have worked as they continued their relationship nearly up until Tumblety's death.

Yes, the chronology is very confusing. He says:

"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”. 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. He gave me a good time..."

I can only assume that at the point in the story between the words "after me" and "He gave me a good time" Norris switches without missing a beat from post-November 1888 right back to 1880/81 otherwise I can't make sense of it.

[Ally]

One of the conversations I had with Mike that was not on the actual recorded podcast was an attempt to ascertain just when the "I think prostitutes should be disemboweled" conversation took place. Because to me, if they were discussing the murders or after the murders and Tumblety did a "Pfft I think all prostitutes should be disemboweled it's kind of a natural outgrowth and literally therefore is evidence of nothing since there's knowledge in the world of the exact happening. I mean it's evidence of him being a butthead but not ..evidence of him confessing his predeliction to disembowel prostitutes. Prostitutes are being disemboweled and like many people who presume morality much like say someone in the 80's saying of gay people getting AIDS, serves them right...(please note, this is NOT MY OPINION I am just trying to provide an example of how him saying how he thinks prostitutes should be disemboweled can be evidence of literally nothing). Anyway, Mike was not able to give an exact time as to when that discussion took place if I remember correctly.

[jmenges]

He doesn't specify. You have what I have and this section is the only time he speaks of the Whitechapel murders. If I were to guess it would be around the same period as when he spoke to Hennessy as he then describes Tumblety basically buying back his trust, which must have worked as they continued their relationship nearly up until Tumblety's death.

JM

[David Orsam]

In order to minimize confusion over the time frame as he does tend to jump around a bit, the main incident he's relating took place 1880-1881 while the conversation with the police Chief was 1888-1890, as he refers to the Chief later on in his deposition as David Hennessy.

Do we know when the conversation with Tumblety, when he spoke to him about the Whitechapel murders, took place?

[jmenges]

In order to minimize confusion over the time frame as he does tend to jump around a bit, the main incident he's relating took place 1880-1881 while the conversation with the police Chief was 1888-1890, as he refers to the Chief later on in his deposition as David Hennessy. You might recall us discussing this tendency of him to time jump on the show.

And yes I agree Robert. The fact that at least
3 attorneys and a couple of doctors also gave testimony of an embarrassing nature must be taken into account.

JM

[Robert]

Thanks Jon. It seems to me that if Norris was coached to deliver a concocted story, whoever did the coaching would have tried to have him appear less simple-minded and mercenary.

"I expected (sic) at once what he was." Ah, you can't pull the wool over Norris's eyes.

[jmenges]

This section of Richard Norris' deposition Mike Hawley read on air so I'm safe to post it here.

Q: Did you ever know an individual here known as Dr. Tumblety or Tumilty?
A: I met Dr. Francis Tumilty, I think, in 1880, during Mardi-Gras. I was at the St. Charles Theatre, and he had a seat alongside of me. During the intermission, a fellow and I got up to go and get a drink, and he followed us. When we got to the counter he introduced himself, saying he was [a] stranger here for the Mardi-Gras holidays, and asked us the privilege of treating. He did not notice my friend much, but seemed to pay all attention to me, and wanted to know my business. I told him I was then employed by the American District Telegraph Office, in charge of the telephone exchange here, when it was up in the Denegre Building; and he told me that he was a surgeon, drawing a pension from the government, and that he was a stockholder in the Western Union. I think he was he then had Ninety Thousand Dollars of stock in the Western Union. Well, I was pleased to meet him, thought he was a fine man, and a stranger. He took me to Lamothe’s and gave me a supper, and asked me to go to his room with him, wanted me to write a letter for him. He had a room at the St. Charles hotel at the time. I told him I was out late, that I lived uptown quite a distance and I could not go with him, because my people objected to my staying out late; in fact, I was afraid of him. He had some large diamonds on him, and I thought he was a confidence man, or a burglar. 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. I went up to the St. Charles hotel with him, he ordered a couple of bottles of Burke’s ale; I drank a bottle, and he drank the other, and he insisted upon my drinking the other. I thought he wanted to get me drunk intoxicated, and I refused to do it. He then opened a large trun (but in the meantime ordered some more ale) and he pulled out 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. Then there was 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. 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. There were large knives in the trunk; and the he came over to me, and felt my pulse, and felt my legs. I was smoking a cigarette at the time, and he said, “Throw that away”, and he handed me a cigar, saying it was bad to smoke cigarettes. He said 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. Now, I read and new of the White Chapel business and did [not] 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. 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”. 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. He 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, and he never attempted to do anything wrong with me until one night he took me to his room, and he locked the door on me. I don’t know whether he was humbugging or not, but he did make a bluff at me with one of those big knives. He said, “You cannot get out of this room while I have this”. He had the door locked and he tuned the gas low, and he then unbuttoned my pants, sat alongside of me, and caught hold of my penus (sic) and played with it, and looked at it. I expected at once what he was, that he was what was commonly known as a **********. I 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. He then let go of me, and stood up, unbuttoned his pants, and showed me something, and he told me he was not good. He was trembling, and was very nervous. He asked me to go to bed with him, that he enjoyed it just as much as a woman did. Of course, I did not know at the time the difference between a morphadite, and never did now that he was a morphadite before. So he got in bed and cocked his legs up, but I did not get down and look at him; I stood off and looked at him; and he insisted upon my having connection with him. I told him I would do this to-morrow; and he did everything, coaxed me, and done everything, offered me money, and made me promise that I would be back the next morning at 10 o’clock. He gave me twenty Dollars that night. So I was there the next morning and I met him coming out of the door. He asked me to go down to the Customhouse that morning with him. He was not at the Charles hotel then [Note: this did not occur that first night], he had changed his place – I don’t know for what cause he had change his lace, but he had changed to Old No. 190 Canal street. He was coming downstairs at the time.
Q: What time did all this take place?
A: This happened in 1881 or 1880.

------

[jmenges]

I now have a transcript of Norris' deposition so I can answer any questions if Mike Hawley is not available. I won't be releasing the whole thing and all inferences and opinions I make are of course my own.

JM