Tumblety: The Hidden Truth

[Abby Normal]

Yea...sounds like a slam, or mock...but that is the term used for that (possibly what Tumblety had) condition.
.Ally seems convinced that is what it is...and that was my take on it as well...in fact when we first discovered it I said....sounds more like mico penis than hermaphrodite.....but the term hermaphrodite comes up more than once...so who knows....but the description fits (no pun intended) the condition of mico penis

Steadmund Brand

Also that they called them morphodites back then.

[Abby Normal]

I have a horrible feeling that comment is directed at me. It would be a huge mistake to think I am doing that, but if there are holes in his evidence then others surely will pick his character or testimony apart.

The timing of the comment as to when Tumblety spoke of a desire to disembowel prostitutes is rather important, especially if he said it before 1888. It's a key piece of evidence that points to Tumblety as Jack the Ripper. Not everyone, I suspect, is going to accept it if there is even the slightest doubt about the matter.

Hi David
I absolutely agree with this as I've said. Here we have a police suspect at the time who was there, saying several years before, if that is the case, that he dislikes women, and that prostitutes should be disemboweled. I mean I don't see how anyone can't see this as point toward his suspecthood. It certainly bumps him up a few notches IMHO.

[Ally]

I would agree with you Brian. In fact, I would now go so far as to say Norris was actually fairly contemptible. He was absolutely a hustler. I was willing to give him some slack when I thought his "hustling" was the product of youth, but it seems fairly clear that he was a hustler throughout, quite willing to use and abuse, during the entire twenty year association. Him finding it amusing to take Tumblety to a whorehouse showed me a side that I found unbelievably distasteful and that can't be dismissed by the follies of youth.

Now I need to clarify something. I have gotten a copy of the transcript. After questioning Mike, it needs to be made clear that the [Not] in the sentence "Now, I read and new of the White Chapel business and did [not] know it at the time." that the [not] is not actually in the testimony. Which changes both the sentence and the timeframe of when this took place.

Norris was saying he read and knew of the Whitechapel murders at the time. Which means this happened after 1888. The [not] was NOT actually in the testimony.

What has been posted and what we are reading is the transcript, with Mike's notes and additions such as "Note: this did not happen the same night" and (sic). Etc.

So it is clear that this did not take place in 81. There was NO [not] in the actual testimony.

[Steadmund Brand]

Just spoke to Mike (who can not post at the moment) so he asked that I clarify-

per Mike " that is why I used brackets, the court recorder made numerous mistakes. Here is an example of two mistakes in one sentence:

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

(Mike again) "When Norris said he got a little scared, he was referencing when he read in the papers in late 1888, he was not referencing about the disemboweled. Why would that have scared him?"

Steadmund Brand

[Ally]

Uh. No. You don't get to decide that leaving out a word that works to bolster your own suspect bias is a "court reporter mistake". You dont get to change sworn testimony to better fit what you WANT it to say.

Norris didn't say he didn't know about the Whitechapel murders. He said he knew about them.

Now I understand it fits the narrative that Mike wants to spin better to claim there's a word missing in there, but a) it doesn't make sense with that word in there and it's entirely too convenient that that way shades towards the opinion he wants to be drawn.

Norris didn't say that. Mike doesn't get to add something and decide he did. Also, he read it out on the podcast as if it was absolutely there in the testimony and didn't indicate it was an assumption on his part. There's a difference between a typo and adding a "missing" word, that conveniently changes the entire meaning of a sentence.

While I believe that the overall find is still valuable, and absolutely historically important and relevant, this kind of tweaking to support suspect bias is the kind of thing that takes quality research and flushes it right down the shitter.

What has been accomplished is a massive find and really quite interesting. It shouldn't be cheapened with suspect bias and changing sworn testimony to what you WANT it to say.

[jmenges]

Now I need to clarify something. I have gotten a copy of the transcript. After questioning Mike, it needs to be made clear that the [Not] in the sentence "Now, I read and new of the White Chapel business and did [not] know it at the time." that the [not] is not actually in the testimony. Which changes both the sentence and the timeframe of when this took place.

Norris was saying he read and knew of the Whitechapel murders at the time. Which means this happened after 1888. The [not] was NOT actually in the testimony.

What has been posted and what we are reading is the transcript, with Mike's notes and additions such as "Note: this did not happen the same night" and (sic). Etc.

So it is clear that this did not take place in 81. There was NO [not] in the actual testimony.

As I stated on the podcast neither Ally nor I had seen the documents or a transcript at the time of the recording of the interview segments. It should be clear from this thread that we didn't receive it until yesterday afternoon.

That Mike read the Norris testimony straight through on the air without explaining that he had corrected what he believe was a error, changing a positive remark into a negative one, is by itself unfortunate even if Mike is right in what was meant. Rippercast's hosts, sponsors and shareholders apologize for the error.



JM

[Steadmund Brand]

Hello again... Mike is still locked out... so he asked I post this for him

Mike: " This is why he bracketed the word as opposed to not bracketing, My original plan was to not do a podcast until AFTER it was written in my book. I was surprised just as much as they were that I was forced to do it sooner...If the book had been first this would never have been an issue"

Steadmund Brand

[jmenges]

As I told Mike my chief and only concern is making sure our listeners are aware of all the relevant facts when it comes to me presenting new material like this for the very first time. A position that should have been clear to him given he was a witness to my "discussion" with Mr. Sandkopp.

JM

[Steadmund Brand]

I can't speak for Mike (sounds silly since I just posted for him... but that was a quote ) But I think what happened is he was reading his copy of the testimony from the word file for his book....not the actual copy, and with it being a "lets get this recorded fast" situation that is what happened.... as for me, at the time I did not have a copy of it in front of me as it was being read so I couldn't jump in and point that out(or I would have, as you know how I am) and Mike would have corrected, or explained....I don't feel his intent was to deceive by any means, hence why it was bracketed in the book (with a footnote I am sure)

Steadmund Brand

[Ally]

Given in context I think it is quite clear that what Norris said and what Norris meant and it is quite clear that all this took place after the events of 88.

Norris confused the dates. He clearly thinks this conversation happened in 81 and he clearly already knew about the Whitechapel murders when this conversation happened. So it didn't happen in 81. So if it happened, it happened after 88. The only logical read is: Norris is talking to Tumblety, Tumblety says he thinks prostitutes should be disemboweled. Norris said he'd read about and knew of the Whitechapel murders. Therefore he was disturbed.

Therefore this conversation, if it occurred, occurred after 1888 and Norris, twenty years later, had his dates wrong.

[mklhawley]

Unlocked!

So, the original plan was to not only publish in the book but also have a series of articles. And then an idiot local St. Louis documentary company was going to podcast the news and screw it up, since they were going to claim the impossible. I contacted Jonathan so that at least the Ripper community heard it first. I have one computer that I was on Skype, a six foot five inch cigar-smoking gentleman next to me, and transcribed documents spread out for Brian and I to read. The documents are still electronic, and my computer was being used for Skype.

Brian was never going to allow me to be deceitful or he'd beat me up (not really, he's a gentle giant).

Much has not been released and much is still going to surprise you. By all means, I expect skepticism, which is actually helpful. I'm just not in the habit of lying.

And Ally, his discussion was in 1904. Recall, Tumblety had pointed one of those knives at him, the same knives he saw earlier. If you believe Norris claimed his molestation and Night Walkers comment was post-1888, then I will hold you to that claim as you should. There is more.


Sincerely,

Mike

[Ally]

....I don't feel his intent was to deceive by any means, hence why it was bracketed in the book (with a footnote I am sure)

Steadmund Brand

Mike was entirely forthcoming when asked if this was his addition. I do hope there is a footnote in the book as well, but when questioned there was no attempt at hiding or obfuscation. I don't want people to think this is some AHA gotcha thing, I was trying to do here. I saw something that made me question the read as given and I wanted to put the clarification down. Just an attempt to put down exactly the facts.

[Steadmund Brand]

What I thought was... when Tumblety threatened Norris and mentioned the disemboweling may have been in 1881- in 1888 after he spoke to him about the Whitechaple murders he remembered what Tumblety had said and got freaked out...but Ally you may be correct as well, sadly no way to clarify as he is long gone

Steadmund Brand

[Steadmund Brand]

Unlocked!


Brian was never going to allow me to be deceitful or he'd beat me up (not really, he's a gentle giant).

Tis true I am a 6'5 ex boxer.... but what Mike isn't saying is he is a 6th degree Aikido blackbelt....so I may not mess with him

and remember folks... sometimes a cigar is just a cigar

Steadmund Brand

[Ally]

Unlocked!

So, the original plan was to not only publish in the book but also have a series of articles. And then an idiot local St. Louis documentary company was going to podcast the news and screw it up, since they were going to claim the impossible. I contacted Jonathan so that at least the Ripper community heard it first. I have one computer that I was on Skype, a six foot five inch cigar-smoking gentleman next to me, and transcribed documents spread out for Brian and I to read. The documents are still electronic, and my computer was being used for Skype.

Brian was never going to allow me to be deceitful or he'd beat me up (not really, he's a gentle giant).

Much has not been released and much is still going to surprise you. By all means, I expect skepticism, which is actually helpful. I'm just not in the habit of lying.

And Ally, his discussion was in 1904. Recall, Tumblety had pointed one of those knives at him, the same knives he saw earlier. If you believe Norris claimed his molestation and Night Walkers comment was post-1888, then I will hold you to that claim as you should. There is more.


Sincerely,

Mike

I am going to hold to my idea that I am starting to doubt a lot of Norris veracity entirely as he seems an entirely shady and rather gross individual the more I read.

For instance, he was alarmed enough by Tumblety's actions and claims of delight in disemboweling prostitutes... but he thought it was hilarious to take him to a brothel and taunt him with possible victims? WHAT?!

This guy is nuttier than a southern fruitcake. If anyone was a likely psychopath it was this jackhole.