Tumblety: The Hidden Truth

[Ally]

Good for him. I guess that alludes to his overall truthfullness and character in his later years. Adds even more weight to his sworn testimony.

[Howard Brown]

He also joined the police department (NOPD ) on August 8th, 1880 as a patrolman.



Nina Brown found newspaper articles and census data on him and his family.

There are still some questions about the story he gives which are a little shady.

If he was a patrolman at the time of this hotel room liason, for instance.

[jmenges]

From what I understand Richard Norris has been fully investigated over at least the past 4 months by not only Mike but a couple of other expert Tumblety researchers whose names you might be able to guess. As far as I know, which is only what I've been told, nothing (outside of his 20 plus year relationship with Tumblety) stands out as remarkable. Mike also noted on the podcast his long-standing employment with the police department as a telegraph operator, which he states suggests a high level of trust the department had in him.

Howard,
At the time of the deposition he gave his address as 1821 South Rampart Street, New Orleans (Google shows what could be the original house still standing). He gave his age as 43.

JM

[David Orsam]

He also joined the police department (NOPD ) on August 8th, 1880 as a patrolman.

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.

[Ally]

Yes, the fact of his employment with the police force is known. And was discussed. The fact that someone in the late 19th century/early 20th century would obfuscate about their sexuality is not really surprising. Especially considering his employment.

[David Orsam]

There are still some questions about the story he gives which are a little shady.

If he was a patrolman at the time of this hotel room liason, for instance.

Mardi Gras 1880 would presumably have been before he joined the police, if he joined in August 1880, and he says he was employed by the American District Telegraph Office at the time in his deposition but clearly any contact with Dr T after the Whitechapel murders must have been while he was with the police, if he remained with them up to 1907.

[jmenges]

He gives his occupation, in 1905, as a "telegraph operator and clerk at the Police Station" which probably pre-dates his job as a bertillon operator (which is interesting, thanks How). His brother John worked the Axeman case of 1918-19.

JM

[David Orsam]

He gives his occupation, in 1905, as a "telegraph operator and clerk at the Police Station" which probably pre-dates his job as a bertillon operator (which is interesting, thanks How).

Did he switch from patrolman to telegraph operator/clerk in about 1884? That might explain the "23 years by 1907" comment.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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]

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

[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.

[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.