Tumblety: The Hidden Truth

[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]

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]

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

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[Steadmund Brand]

Micro-penis.

Learned a new word today

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

[mklhawley]

[QUOTE=Ally;415070]

I don't dispute Tumblety was a misogynist. That doesn't make him Jack the Ripper.

I don't dispute Tumblety had knives. That doesn't make him Jack the Ripper.

I don't dispute Anderson and Swanson believed a polish Jew was the killer. That doesn't make him Jack the Ripper.

I don't dispute Mac believed it was Druitt. That doesn't make him Jack the Ripper.

I don't dispute Abberline... That doesn't make him Jack the Ripper.

I don't dispute Littlechild... That doesn't make him Jack the Ripper.

I don't dispute the suspects who saw the victims with suspicious characters. That doesn't make them Jack the Ripper.

I think I agree with you Ally.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Abby Normal]

Micro-penis.

Learned a new word today

[Robert]

Thanks JM.

[Robert]

Thanks Stead.

[jmenges]

I don't think there are any questions missing. It's the textbook definition of "spilling the beans". Immediately after giving the dates of the first incidents with Tumblety the questioning attorney says "Go on". There is an objection, which is over ruled, and the judge says "Q: Go on, and narrate what you were saying just now?" So neither the attorney for the contesting family members nor the judge seemed to mind his manner of answering this first question. As the deposition moves along it does fall into a chronological pattern of his encounters with Tumblety and there are more questions posed to help keep Norris on track, and Norris appears to calm down. So I agree with Brian that the way the first answer is long and rambling with no interruption from attorneys can be put down to Norris' nerves, and possibly the defense counsel caught off guard.

JM

[Steadmund Brand]

Re the rambling nature of Norris's testimony : is it possible that some of it was in answer to questions which aren't indicated in the text?

That is exactly what I first thought when we discovered this....I even asked Mike, but after reading more of these documents it appears he is just rambling....i still think it's"possible" the questions are removed but not likely....the conclusion I came to is it was just a very nervous Norris, especially since his "homosexual" life was being exposed (however I believe he was more a, for lack of a better term, "hustler" who engaged in homosexual acts..but was heterosexual)....he always justifies his "relationship" by talking about all the money Tumblety spent on him....as if that shows he wasn't in it for "companionship"
again these are just my thoughts....as we will never know for sure....

Steadmund Brand