Tumblety: The Hidden Truth

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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]

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

[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]

No no, remember I saw the actual ones.. NOT Mike's transcriptions....sorry that may have been another point of confusion... I was not going off Mike's version.. but the original.

I should have made that clear... sorry

Steadmund

[Ally]

When the deposition includes statements like this:

"Afte that he was arresyed, supposed to be a bad character."

It must be admitted that there were errors, possibly including ones that might read grammatically.

JM

Well there's typos, but also we don't have the deposition. We have Mike's transcription of the deposition so how do we know what mistakes are the depositions and which are Mikes?

But again, typos are not the same thing as completely leaving out words that change a sentence from a positive to a negative and change a grammatically correct sentence to a senseless one. Not doesn't make sense in that interpretation.

And again, you are reading it as you would WRITE something, not as people would speak. "After that, he was arrested... supposed to be a bad character..." with facial expressions and knowing looks actually makes perfect sense...as someone would SPEAK it.

[Steadmund Brand]

As I said, you can read it however you want. However, the addition of the completely imaginary Not turns the sentence from grammatically correct to grammatical gibberish.

The sentence as it stands is grammatically correct. The three sentences together form a coherent narrative of an event that all happened at the same time.

Anyone is free to twist it out of all shape but that doesn't change the fact the three sentences together are grammatically correct and form a cohesive narrative, and the additions of "not" and time jumps do so at the expense of having to twist the sentences all out of logical and grammatical shape to make them fit what you THINK they say, rather than what they actually and grammatically say.

And it should be pointed out that Norris TWICE says he attempts to shun Tumblety at two different points in the timeline and then contradicts himself and says Tumblety shunned him.

So while his sentences are always correct and clear, his narrative and timeline isn't. Which leads more towards him being alright with grammar and not so great on keeping his timeline straight. Because first he tried to shun him after the disemboweling comment which would have happened early 90s then he says he tried to shun him a few years ago when he got "strange".

He apparently managed to keep up quite the relationship for a guy he kept trying to shake loose. And then of course he admits Tumblety was the one who shunned him after his marriage.

So again: everything he actually says points to him not having his timeline in order. And he actually says a couple of times in the deposition he can't remember exactly what year certain things happen.

As I said, you can read it however you want, as long as you accept that your way makes zero grammatical sense. Because it doesn't. Your way requires excusing five mistakes Norris makes in one sentence and one transcription error. That's a lot of "interpretation" .

not mine .. remember I also do not think the "not" should be there....I admit to mine making grammatical errors (grossly so.. and I admit that..that is part of my point, I believe it WAS GRAMMATICALY TERRIBLE, as was much of what he said in other parts) but not transcription errors. I think that is (probably correct) you see Ally, if not for how bad I think Norris spoke (when he would get nervous) I would agree with you, it DOES read how you see it....but.. because of everything else..I can see the mistakes in grammar being on him..Norris...

Steadmund Brand

[Ally]

By the way, I am not disputing that the discovery of Tumblety's condition took place in 81. That is most likely when the actual events and ACTION took place.

What I am disputing is that the conversation and STRICTLY the conversation regarding disemboweling took place in 81. That happened later, as an entire piece, where he heard the statement and knowing about the Murders, hied himself off to the police. AS he says occurred.

[jmenges]

When the deposition includes statements like this:

"Afte that he was arresyed, supposed to be a bad character."

It must be admitted that there were errors, possibly including ones that might read grammatically.

JM

[Steadmund Brand]

First- I have to say...to my defense.. I am NOT trying to sell a suspect book....Mike is, true.. but not I for if I did it would be my preferred suspect... which I will reveal here for the first time ever... **clears throat**

You see, Van Gogh, Lewis Carroll and Joseph Merrick were all drinking buddies and members of the same secret society (Loyal Oder of Water Buffaloes) and they were having a go at the pub one night and thought, ya know what would be wild.... if we just started killing prostitutes for giggles because in the future NOBODY will believe it's us....well what started out as light hearted banter got serious after a few more drinks....well skip to them being caught (but covered up as the police were ALL Water Buffaloes as well) and they were broken out of prison by a 14 year old Harry Houdini and 13 year old Aleister Crowley...there is more but saving that for my book "Case Closed, Slam Dunk, Home Run, Fat Lady Sings" (wait till you read the chapter on Bigfoot and Cthulhu)

Steadmund Brand

(that is how I feel about suspect books now at least ones that claim to have "SOLVED" it)

[Ally]

As I said, you can read it however you want. However, the addition of the completely imaginary Not turns the sentence from grammatically correct to grammatical gibberish.

The sentence as it stands is grammatically correct. The three sentences together form a coherent narrative of an event that all happened at the same time.

Anyone is free to twist it out of all shape but that doesn't change the fact the three sentences together are grammatically correct and form a cohesive narrative, and the additions of "not" and time jumps do so at the expense of having to twist the sentences all out of logical and grammatical shape to make them fit what you THINK they say, rather than what they actually and grammatically say.

And it should be pointed out that Norris TWICE says he attempts to shun Tumblety at two different points in the timeline and then contradicts himself and says Tumblety shunned him.

So while his sentences are always correct and clear, his narrative and timeline isn't. Which leads more towards him being alright with grammar and not so great on keeping his timeline straight. Because first he tried to shun him after the disemboweling comment which would have happened early 90s then he says he tried to shun him a few years ago when he got "strange".

He apparently managed to keep up quite the relationship for a guy he kept trying to shake loose. And then of course he admits Tumblety was the one who shunned him after his marriage.

So again: everything he actually says points to him not having his timeline in order. And he actually says a couple of times in the deposition he can't remember exactly what year certain things happen.

As I said, you can read it however you want, as long as you accept that your way makes zero grammatical sense. Because it doesn't. Your way requires excusing five mistakes Norris makes in one sentence and one transcription error. That's a lot of "interpretation" .