Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Tumblety: The Hidden Truth

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • jmenges
    replied
    Originally posted by Ally View Post
    Everyone is absolutely free to believe what they wish, but the word "interpretation" is wrong.

    One way is what he actually SAID.
    I still believe there is a very real possibility that the stenographer made a mistake that Mike Hawley (correctly) corrected. I am of the opinion that the opening section is describing at least two, if not three different incidents that all took place around 1880-1881, very early in their association. It would be exceedingly odd for Norris to have thrown in the "disemboweling" comment into this portion of his testimony if it took place circa 1889, at a point in time they were not on such friendly terms. For the period 1888-89 is when Tumblety attempted to pay him to be his traveling companion.

    "He wrote out a check for Seven Hundred Dollars in 1888 or 1889 – the Legislature was in session at the time and I had to go to Baton Rouge. He wrote the check out, payable to bearer, and guaranteed me that I could cash it in any bank where we would go if I would go there with him. He was very anxious to et me to go with him, and I refused to go with him."

    Later in the deposition they return to the time Tumblety gave him $20 which related to the section under discussion in which he says: "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. "

    Q: Did I understand you to say that twenty years ago you examined his person sufficiently to see that he was neither man nor woman, but was what was commonly called a morphadite or a hermaphrodite?
    A: He was, no doubt about that.
    Q: And at the time he wanted you to have sexual relation with him; did he say so?
    A: Yes, sir. I could tell you more than that. He threw me on the bed and we had quite a tussle. He threw me on top of him, but I was a pretty handy youngster myself then, was a wild fellow and took all sorts of chances, I was on the money side, saw he was stuck on me and I said, “I have got to [bribe] if you want me to do anything like that.” I went over and told my friend Doyle about it, and he said, “Why don’t you take a trick at him to see how it goes.”
    Q: He let you go that night without having anything to do with him?
    A: Yes, sir, after a hard time.
    Q: And he gave you how much?
    A: He gave me twenty dollars to take a cab. I told him I live up in Carrolitan.
    Q: You accepted the twenty dollars?
    A: I did.
    Q: You never returned it to him? A: No.
    Q: And you left him that night on the promise to return at ten o’clock the next morning?
    A: I did.
    Q: And you did return on the following morning at ten o’clock?
    A: I did.
    Q: And on that occasion he bought you a suit of clothes?
    A: Yes, sir.
    Q: Which you accepted?
    A: Yes, sir.
    Q: And you continued to associate with him from that time until in the 90’s; until sometime in the latter 90’s?
    A: Yes, sir.

    When you take into consideration all of the deposition, there is a chronology to it tells me that the most likely explanation is the disemboweling comment Tumblety made was prior to the murders, and Norris jumps ahead in time when he says he discussed him with Hennessey "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 so the next time Norris sees Tumblety after this discussion "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".

    This is how I choose to read it at this point in time, whether Ally likes it or not.

    JM
    Last edited by jmenges; 05-19-2017, 04:43 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ally
    replied
    Everyone is absolutely free to believe what they wish, but the word "interpretation" is wrong.

    One way is what he actually SAID.

    The other is an interpretation, because they don't like what he actually said, so they want to interpret it to mean something else.

    There is a difference.

    He said English words that have a specific English meaning.

    That's not as sexy when you're trying to sell a suspect book.

    So they have a different interpretation.

    There are not two interpretations. One is what he said, the other is an interpretation.

    Leave a comment:


  • GUT
    replied
    Unfortunately, eithe Steadmund or Ally could be right in their interpretation, or wrong. Neither are interpretations I'd rule out without more information.

    It's a problem with transcripts even today.

    I haven't been able to listen yet due to some computer issues, is there a judgement, that will often assist in deciphering the transcript because the Judge will be aware of the tone of voice, inflections etc.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Originally posted by Robert View Post
    Tumblety's bathroom had two towels, marked "His" and "Herm."
    Splendid!

    Leave a comment:


  • Robert
    replied
    Tumblety's bathroom had two towels, marked "His" and "Herm."

    Leave a comment:


  • Abby Normal
    replied
    Dam Morphodites!

    Leave a comment:


  • Steadmund Brand
    replied
    I was hoping Norris would have said things like he introduced me to Henry Irving and Bram Stoker.....or... He talked about his old buddy John Wilkes Booth.....but alas, he didn't

    Steadmund Brand

    Leave a comment:


  • Steadmund Brand
    replied
    Thank you!!! I am fine with you ripping me apart...as long as it's me...I am my own man hahahahha...

    And as I said...never said I was right....just how I read it when I first did..along with everything else....that is not what I want him to say....because it goes against what I personally believe (and have argued with Mike about)....just telling everyone what my Yankee brain thought and tell everyone to make up their own mind....because I don't know for sure (I know I would have asked him to clarify, and had follow up questions for sure...but if that happened it wasn't noted)...it's almost a throw away part in his testimony...like nobody at the time cared (maybe for good reason). Here is what I DO know....Norris was a dirt bag, even if he was trusted by the New Orleans police...and he tries to make himself look good...Tumblety was an F'd up person....doesn't make him the Ripper, and the New Orleans police didn't put much effort if any into proving he was "Jack"

    Steadmund

    Leave a comment:


  • Ally
    replied
    Brian,

    Your interpretation still requires shoehorning in a time jump and the belief that he just suddenly couldn't speak a grammatically correct sentence.


    My way, his sentence is grammatically correct as it is. He just forgot what year it happened.

    Your way requires him to have forgotten to distinguish a time jump, "Now later on, when I was reading about the Whitechapel murders...."


    and him to have suddenly lost his grammatical ability to connect pronouns "it" with their logical antecedents.

    The way you interpret the sentence doesn't make logical sense for the structure of the sentence.

    My way, the sentence is actually perfect as written. He just confused the year.

    Your way requires a lot more "well, he screwed up saying this, and this, and this and this, but this is just as valid an interpretation as yours". Your way requires an explanation for four mistakes you BELIEVE he made. And you want to claim it's as valid as mine.

    I disagree. I am going with Occam's here. And the simplest explanation is, he said exactly what he meant and it makes perfect sense.

    He just misremembered the year.


    And if you want to claim that in this one instance he completely went to **** linguistically, you have to find another example in there where his sentence structure went kaput lingusitically and he confused simple words like "remembered" and "know". As a person would SPEAK, not as a person would write. As there is a distinct linguistic difference.
    Last edited by Ally; 05-18-2017, 04:53 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Steadmund Brand
    replied
    Remember...it's not "their" it's "mine" hahaha Mike and I disagree on the wording...the infamous "not" and all....and as I said....it IS grammatically wrong....as is so much in these statements......but Ally...give credit where credit is due....if you disagree it's with me (Brian) not us (Mike and Brian) for he would be wrong in a whole other way ��.......
    And as I said many times.....I am NOT claiming I am right....just that....that is how I read it....without hearing it live, and asking what he meant or any other follow up questions...we cant know for sure......it is VERY possible you are correct, mo doubt
    also no shoehorning here...as I also do not believe that Tumblety was the Ripper.....I think Norris tried to make him look bad (and make himself seem "innocent....when he, Norris, was clearly a scumbag)...I do believe Tumblety is a (contemporary) suspect that should be looked at as such.....

    But in all fairness, you have to differentiate between Mike and Brian...
    I am the tall good looking one.....just ask GUT...

    Plus..I can't defend what or how Mike sees it....only he can....and will I'm sure he will....but this one....shoot the arrows at me alone �� I can take it.

    The important thing is, he testified to the knives, the disemboweling and other such offences'....whether he was mixing up years as you think, or using terrible English as I think...what matters is he said it.....now....the real question is....is he telling the "truth" or is he remembering things years later and putting them together in his head the way he "wants" it to be.....or just so damn nervous talking about "things" that he gets all muddled up...

    Again, sadly we will never know for sure.

    Steadmund (Brian)

    Leave a comment:


  • Ally
    replied
    Yep. That's it, David. With of course the addendum that my interpretation means the sentences make grammatical sense, as they were said.

    Their interpretation is simply that, an interpretation they are trying to shoehorn in because the grammatical structure of the sentence doesn't support it, and he doesn't actually SAY any of that.

    Leave a comment:


  • GUT
    replied
    Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
    So, if I understand it all correctly, here are the two different ways that the first whole two sentences are being read (with me again taking liberties with the text):

    Ally's way (with a confused Norris getting the year wrong):

    "He said if he had his way they would all be disemboweled. Now, I'm always reading the newspapers and, in 1881, when we were having this conversation, I knew of the White Chapel business; and I did know about the White Chapel business at the time I had the conversation with him about the disemboweling."

    Steadmand's way (with no confusion on Norris' part about the year)

    "He said, in 1881, if he had his way they would all be disemboweled. Now, seven or eight years later, I read and knew of the White Chapel business and, at the time I read about it, I did remember the conversation I had had with him in 1881 about the disemboweling."

    That's seems to be right.

    Leave a comment:


  • Abby Normal
    replied
    Originally posted by Ally View Post
    I'm sorry. I hear they're doing great things with plastic surgery nowadays. Don't lose hope.
    I won't. Thanks ally

    Leave a comment:


  • David Orsam
    replied
    So, if I understand it all correctly, here are the two different ways that the first whole two sentences are being read (with me again taking liberties with the text):

    Ally's way (with a confused Norris getting the year wrong):

    "He said if he had his way they would all be disemboweled. Now, I'm always reading the newspapers and, in 1881, when we were having this conversation, I knew of the White Chapel business; and I did know about the White Chapel business at the time I had the conversation with him about the disemboweling."

    Steadmand's way (with no confusion on Norris' part about the year)

    "He said, in 1881, if he had his way they would all be disemboweled. Now, seven or eight years later, I read and knew of the White Chapel business and, at the time I read about it, I did remember the conversation I had had with him in 1881 about the disemboweling."

    Leave a comment:


  • c.d.
    replied
    Originally posted by Ally View Post
    I'm sorry. I hear they're doing great things with plastic surgery nowadays. Don't lose hope.
    Classic.

    c.d.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X