Tumblety: The Hidden Truth

[Ally]

Yes. My way Noris confused the year it happened. Not specifically that it was exactly in 1888 but it was post-1888 and not in 1881.

Their way, IT happened in two separate years and if you add a not and make thesentence completely not-grammatical, and ignore the second half of what he says and then add in an unvoiced but we know it happened time jump of eight years between sentence 1 and sentence 2....it all matches the theory.

Because that makes more sense than just Norris got his year mixed up.

But yes. You've got the gist of it.

[David Orsam]

So here, I think, are the two different ways that the first bit of the passage is being read (with me taking liberties with the text):

Ally's way (with a confused Norris saying 1881 when he should have said 1888):

"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.... "

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...."

I don't know which is correct but I think that with Steadmand's way you need to change the subsequent "and did know it at the time" to "and did not know it at the time" for it to make sense.

Have I got that right?

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Hi Jonathan.

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.

O’Malley arrested Tumblety at his boarding house, not “in the Customhouse,” where Govan worked, but this is only a small matter.

The bit about newspapers reporting that burglars’ tools were found “but then corrected themselves the next day to say that they found surgical instruments” does not appear to be true.

One newspaper, the New Orleans Times Democrat, 25 March, 1881, stated that according to O’Malley Tumblety’s room “contained lots of burglars' tools and a box of medical instruments.” You’ll notice that what O’Malley claimed was “medical instruments,” not “surgical instruments.” There is a distinction. The article goes on to state that when O’Malley returned with his search warrant he “found that the burglars' tools and case of medical instruments had been removed during his absence” (I can understand why burglars’ tools might disappear, if they existed, but why would Tumblety’s medical instruments vanish as well?).

No one, other than O’Malley, saw, or claimed to have seen, any burglars’ tools or medical instruments at the time of Tumblety’s arrest. The Rochester Union & Advertiser, 13 April, 1881, states “It was charged at first that mysterious instruments and tools of unholy character were found in Dr. Tumblety’s room at the time of his arrest,” without describing any of them as being “medical,” but it went on to declare “As for the tools and instruments, they seem to be inventions. Nobody has ever seen them, and the landlady, Mrs. Field, emphatically declares that there were no such articles in Dr. Tumblety’s room at any time.”

This was the belief of the police, and subsequently the judge, that O’Malley was lying about the whole thing. According to the New Orleans Times Picayune, 26 March, 1881, “From a statement made by Detective M. Hennessey, who has been investigating the case, it is learned that a piece of a file was found lying on the table in the Doctor’s room. He claims to be in possession of evidence to show that the piece of file was left on the table by O’Malley for the purpose of leading to the belief that there were burglars tools in the room and that they had been removed.” Again, no mention of medical instruments but the belief that O'Malley had attempted to set Tumblety up.

Wolf.

[Ally]

Except the phrase "Now I read" is used all the time as a means of setting up your expert status in something or giving your credentials. As is "Now I know about..." usually followed by sentences that display staggering ignorance on the subject of which they are about to claim knowledge. It's is a common-place phrase.

And regardless, he said "and I knew it at the time".

So... What event "at the time" was he referring to except the one he'd just referred to? He is claiming that he had knowledge at the time that Tumblety said that about prostitutes and therefore what Tumblety said disturbed him.

And yes, we can know, because one way makes sense, and the other doesn't. Even in your example you said Now I read THAT. Which is totally different to Now I read...AND. They are different.

That would basically be the equivalent of me reading a statement where someone from england describes Well I went to my car and got my scarf out of the boot. And someone years later attempting to claim he meant from a pair of shoes, and that proved he had boots and the killer wore boots, so therefore your interpretation is as valid as mine, so that was proof the suspect had a pair of boots.

Uh no. You can't twist it and pretend it has alternate meanings that the dialect and the language don't naturally support. He was a southerner. Southerners have a way of speaking. If you read it, as it would have been said, the entire thing makes perfect sense. If you want to add things and pretend there's "alternate" explanations that's fine, but it's not really scholarly.

Now you can argue which boot it was if you wish, but you can't argue that he said "he knew it at the time". So what was he referring to with that?

[Steadmund Brand]

Thanks you guys.
whenever he said it before or after the murders it points as a check mark to his validity as a suspect. It shows motive (at least an outward one) and the desire. Of course if he said it before its more relevant but either way its still very significant IMHO.

I agree....see, you have to remember I am not and never was a "Tumblety guy" which is why Mike and I work together... checks and balances... I do agree he is a "suspect" and a valid one.. and I believe Scotland yard thought of him as a suspect (suspect..not the killer himself) but the odds of him being Jack....same as with the other (legit) suspects.... chances are we will never know for sure (until that time machine is fixed.. and now that Art Bell is retired how will we ever find out when that is!!!)

Steadmund Brand

[Steadmund Brand]

HAHAHA us damn Yankees with our book learnin'

The point I am making is, even with a drawl, the language (English) is complex and can be read different ways... and sadly we will never know which is right in a case like that

Steadmund Brand

[Abby Normal]

Thanks you guys.
whenever he said it before or after the murders it points as a check mark to his validity as a suspect. It shows motive (at least an outward one) and the desire. Of course if he said it before its more relevant but either way its still very significant IMHO.

[Steadmund Brand]

See, there I have to disagree...I know what you are saying... but it is very possible that it is a separate time.... plenty of times a conversation can be like that....just as an example (a bad one but in honor of the horse race this weekend) ....

so I swore I would never again bet on a gray horse. Now, I read that the favorite is a gray horse and I don't know what to do...

See talking about two different times with "Now" as the separator....I am not saying I am right and you are wrong.. I am just saying without directly asking what he meant, we can't know for sure

Steadmund Brand

[Ally]

Part of the problem is you have a pack of yankees attempting to read in the voice of a southerner and you are hitting the stresses wrong and therefore because you aren't pausing or inflecting right, you aren't reading the meaning right. Not to start the civil war again but you need some sweet tea in you and to have tasted proper grits before you can hear this voice right, and you aren't hearing it right. This is a story, and it's all of a piece.

At the time he heard Tumblety say that about disemboweling prostitutes he already had knowledge. He heard and went well my gosh, Nooow, I'm a reader, and knew of those murders and what this man said disturbed me so I lit over to the police and told them about this fellow. He is telling a cause and effect relationship. "Now" isn't even an indicator of time, it's a verbal tic, a dialect marker setting up a revelation in the story.

I can HEAR the difference in my head but I can't explain it to you. Put a drawl on it and think kentucky fried and you can maybe see what I mean. This guy was from Lousiana. He had a drawl.

[Ally]

No because one, I think you are reading "read" past tense instead of "read" present tense, you are reading Now I red and knew of the whitechapel murders instead of Now I reed (as in, I am a reader), and knew of the whitechapel murders, but regardless of that specific words it is clear that he said "NOw", as in, so let me tell you "NOW when I heard that, I knew because I ...." He said he knew it "at the time". He didn't say later. He said, Now. Which anyone knows is how you follow up a Thought with a Thunderstruck. Now let me tell you what ... He heard tumblety say that about prostitutes and was using language in the moment. There is literally no separation in time. He heard tumblety say that, it struck a chord in him and disturbed him based on his knowledge and he hied himself off to the police.

There is not a single word in that passage that indicates a separation in time between the two events.

[Steadmund Brand]

Ally, I know you read it a different way... that's the great thing about debate, well not debate... more like discussion...since we are all on the same side (I think )however, would you agree that my interpretation is also a 3rd possibility.. as in when he said "Now, I read and new of the White Chapel business " could have meant "then when I read about"....it is possible...especially as it appears it is the start of a new thought...

Steadmund Brand

[Ally]

Here is the relevant text:

He said, if he had his way they would all be disemboweled. Now, I read and knew of the White Chapel business and did 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.

Norris said this conversation happened in 1881. Which clearly could not have happened.

[Steadmund Brand]

so I'm confused. did Norris say that tumblety told him that prostitutes be disemboweled before or after the ripper murders?

there is the question.....the way Norris rambles it is hard to tell.. As I said, they way I read it is he told him that before ( when he first tried to "seduce" him.. he took the cigarette and said negative things about the night walkers.....and I believe it was after the murders that ...ding... the light bulb went off and Norris thought.... he said night walker should be disemboweled when he threatened me with that knife......... Again... that is just how I read it....I could be wrong....but that is how it sounds

Steadmund Brand

[Ally]

Unless he was psychic, after 1888. In his testimony Norris recounts a conversation that he had with Tumblety about T thinking prostitutes should be disemboweled. He then says that as he'd read of the whitechapel murders and knew about them, he was disturbed by this and went and told the cops about the conversation. . However, Norris said that conversation took place in 1881. This was some 20 years later. So the options are: Norris was psychic. Or Norris was misremembering the year, when he was testifying almost 20 years later.

Take your pick.

[Abby Normal]

so I'm confused. did Norris say that tumblety told him that prostitutes be disemboweled before or after the ripper murders?