Tumblety: The Hidden Truth

[Ally]

I'm not talking about in general, I am talking about the specific example that Jonathan pointed out with the two typos.

The way I realized that this was not the actual court document was because there was a (sic) there after "penus". That only occurs when someone wants to indicate that a word was misspelled in the original. So I knew, when I saw that I wasn't looking at the original.

But there's no (sic) in Jonathan's above cited example. Why not? Is it misspelled in the original and Mike didn't put (sic) this time for some reason or is it a mistake from when Mike transcribed it.

We can only blame the court transcriber for mistakes we KNOW they made. And again, even if these were original court transcriber mistakes, there's still a world of difference between making spelling errors and leaving out a key word that someone really wants to be there because it just makes it soooo much more juicy that way.

[Steadmund Brand]

But I don't add the word.. I just think it's terrible grammar

[Ally]

But it's not terrible grammar. If you don't try to make it fit your notion of what you THINK it means, it's perfect grammar.

It's only when you try to make it fit what you believe it means that the grammar becomes bad.

Leave it alone, and the grammar is actually perfect. The sentence is not bad grammar. It makes perfect sense. You just don't want to accept what it says.

[Steadmund Brand]

But what I am saying in there is terrible grammar throughout the whole of it...when I first heard about it and was told what it said I was in your camp, and even tried making that point...then I received the entire transcript (Not Mike's but photos of the originals) and AFTER reading it ALL...it is what I came to....again..it is not a fair argument (well discussion, not argument as there is no animosity) because you haven't read the whole of it....so you are correct to see it the way you do (as I said exactly how I did before reading it all)...
mine is based on the whole of the info, not just the section...

I noticed you don't disagree with my "suspect theory" from a few posts back ��

Steadmund

[Ally]

I would like to see some more examples of the terrible grammar throughout. And I mean terrible grammar as someone would SPEAK, not as someone would write. This is a person speaking and a court transcriber taking it down. Punctuation will not be perfect.

Half of my professional career was looking at a mess of writing and having to quickly identify where the missing punctuation ought to go.

I dispute that Norris' grammar was terrible. He used speaking colloquialism and there are missing commas, pauses and punctuation. But if you read through it, with an eye towards hearing how it ought to sound, it's actually NOT terrible grammar. We are missing the facial markers of grammar and the pauses.

But I spent my life putting them in where they belonged in a mess of writing, so when I read through something, I know what's actual terrible grammar (<--- like that) and what's just a missing comma.

And again, we have to view this as someone ...speaking. And spoken grammar is far different than written grammar. I think everyone will agree to that.

And he does not indicate poor grammar. Especially not such poor grammar that he would confuse "remember" and "know".

It is not poor grammar. It's poor punctuation. Which occurs in all transcripts. Grammar is not the same thing as punctuation. His grammar isn't poor. The punctuation, I grant you, is.

[jmenges]

As an aside, Tumblety is the only suspect (besides Pizer) that we know of who were we can positively say that they were aware that they were a suspect. And I guess that's what makes the timing of his "disemboweling" comment relevant. Whereas, if it was found in an asylum report that Kozminski had said "all night walkers should be disemboweled" in say 1894, it would be a pretty significant find. But since we know Tumblety was cognizant of the fact he was a police suspect it seems like we're saying we can throw the comment away if it was made post 1888. Even if he said it in mid-December 88 or early January 89.

Interesting.

JM

[Ally]

Well yes and that's my exact argument. So being that, as the key passage happens all of a piece as he says it: Tumblety said prostitutes should be disemboweled, he was disturbed because he knew of the prostitute murders so went to the police, do we have a record of when he went to the police and what if anything he said? I doubt there's any transcription that can be found but it would certainly be interesting.

But the way y'all want to read it is: completely independent of anything, Norris reads about the prostitute murders in England, and because of recollection of a conversation with a man he has no way of knowing is even in England at the time, he goes to the police and makes a report. Why would he do that?

He remembers a conversation he had with a man in New Orleans about disemboweling prostitutes 8 years ago, and without any reason to think this guy is in England, goes and reports to the police about this conversation about something that happened in New Orleans.

What? I am sorry, that makes zero sense. What did he have to connect Tumblety to England at the time he supposedly read the papers since you're assuming that the conversation and the report didn't happen one after the other.

He just randomly on his own decided to connect Tumblety to England?

The conversation with Tumblety about being in England when the murders occurred didn't happen until AFTER he said he already reported to the police.

So the way you guys want to read it is:

In 1881, Tumblety says he wants prostitutes to be disemboweled.

8 years later, Norris reads about murders happening in England and decides to go report Tumblety... even though there is literally nothing linking Tumblety to England at the time he would be making this report.

[Robert]

Interesting that he says 'disembowelled' and not 'ripped up' or similar. Nothing can be read into it, but my impression is that the bowels were not a target but an impediment.

[Steadmund Brand]

Actually Ally... he was "close" with Tumblety, and he knew he went to England every year, and that he came to Mardi Gras every year, AND he said he told him he was in England at the time...so he did have plenty to connect him to England.. again....I think, he mentioned the disemboweling in 1881.. only because he said it when he "threatened" Norris, took his cigarette away and said what he did about Smoking and Night walkers being bad....then in 1888-1889 when he said he read about the killings and Tumblety told him he was there at the time Norris "got freaked" (which I don't get.. he freaks out at that.. but not in 1881 when he locked him in a room at knife point and attempted to "rape" him.....strange don't ya think????)
my guess is (and this is JUST A GUESS as we have no proof) is that....the murders happen...Norris read about it like everyone else in the world, when he see's Tumblety again he asks him about them, ya know like "hey, you go to England... did you hear anything about these" and when Tumblety confirmed he was there Norris went to the police and said this guy once told me that night walkers should be disemboweled and he has these knives and he WAS in England when it happened....he may be "Jack the Ripper" can I have a reward now? (I think that is the kind of character Norris was)

Steadmund Brand

[Ally]

Actually he wasn't close to Tumblety and there is nothing to indicate that he knew he went to England or that he knew he was in England until Tumblety told him that he'd been there.... after he already had reported it to the police. He asked him about the Whitechapel business, after he said he had already reported it to the police. His narrative went: Tumblety said that about the disembowelment, he'd already heard of the murders. He went to the police, the police said he matched the description, he asked about the murders to Tumblety, Tumblety said he'd been in England at the time, and then Norris tried to shun him.

Close people don't mention how many times they tried to shun you during the course of your relationship.

He says that when Tumblety would come to Mardi Gras, he'd send him a note, letting him know he was in town. He says Tumblety never told him of his family or anything else.

They weren't "close".

There is nothing in his description of their relationship that indicates closeness or confidences or anything other than acquaintances who knew each other and who would meet up, so Tumblety could buy him things every Mardis Gras.

And it still doesn't make sense that he would just randomly connect an off hand comment to a man he knew to be gay, to a woman killer in England based on literally nothing else than an offhand comment 8 years prior. Not enough to warrant a trip to the police.

[Robert]

Hi Stead

Surely Norris would have just said to the police "You know that Tumblety guy who arrived from England under a cloud? Well...."

Why would Norris say "He answers the description"?

[Abby Normal]

I don't know about anyone else, but this is pretty big IMHO.

sworn testimony from someone who knew him well, saying he had knives and surgical equipment, that prostitutes should be disemboweled, confirms his hate of women. Hes obviously a sexually frustrated individual.

Id never had T very high on my list but this has to bump him up, does it not??

added to above, he was there at the time and was a police suspect.

I still have my main caveats though- killers usually target the object of there sexual desire, and T was gay soooo. Was he possibly Bi?

also, none of the witnesses describe a large man-None.

but what another completely bizarre fascinating side issue/submystery involving the ripper case!!??!

[Steadmund Brand]

Close people don't mention how many times they tried to shun you during the course of your relationship.

He says that when Tumblety would come to Mardi Gras, he'd send him a note, letting him know he was in town. He says Tumblety never told him of his family or anything else.

They weren't "close".

There is nothing in his description of their relationship that indicates closeness or confidences or anything other than acquaintances who knew each other and who would meet up, so Tumblety could buy him things every Mardis Gras.

=.

I don't understand how you can definitively say the weren't close.. I can't say for sure they were... but you seem to imply that without question, 100% for sure they were not....how? There IS something in the description of their relationship that indicates it (at least from one side).. the length of time and years it spanned....Look if it were just sex, there were PLENTY of "hustlers" around, especially Mardi Gras, that Tumblety could have "had".. especially knowing his proclivity, younger ones at that...and if it were just have an acquaintance...seriously? in New Orleans... at Mardi Gras...when you are rich? that doesn't add up... "close" does not always mean "confidences" by any means....and it could have been a totally one sided "closeness" with Norris just in it for the free swag

As for mentioning the shunning... well, seems like Norris again trying to make himself look like a good guy...when (we both agree) he really comes across more like a scumbag (see we do agree on some things that and Vodka based drinks!!!)

Also, remember, Tumblety NEVER talked about family.. so that is no surprise... but he loved to brag about England and being important to people.. so that seems pretty reasonable to me

Steadmund Brand

P.S when we do all get together remember the first drink is on me!!

[Steadmund Brand]

I still have my main caveats though- killers usually target the object of there sexual desire, and T was gay soooo. Was he possibly Bi?

but what another completely bizarre fascinating side issue/submystery involving the ripper case!!??!

Well depends... on if you believe he was inter-sexed or micro penis....inter sexed that wouldn't make him gay really would it

Steadmund Brand

[Ally]

I don't understand how you can definitively say the weren't close.. I can't say for sure they were... but you seem to imply that without question, 100% for sure they were not....how?

Can I definitively state that they weren't close? No. But there was nothing in anything he said that indicated closeness. He refused him often and seemed to view him mostly as a means to an end.

But what I can state is that Norris didn't know Tumblety was in England at the time of the Whitechapel murders until Tumblety told him he had been...after Norris had already gone to the police. And I can state that, because that's the narrative he gave.

So there would have been no reason for Norris to read about the prositute murders and immediately connect it to Tumblety. Based on an offhand comment years before.

P.S when we do all get together remember the first drink is on me!!

Ooh in that case I'm ordering a shot of Cognac Croizet Cuvée Leonie 1858.


(yes I googled to find out the world's most expensive shot.)