Tumblety: The Hidden Truth

[Robert]

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?

[GUT]

Oh how right you are.....scary thing is....you should see his Aussie Twin...woof now that is scary looking ��

Steadmund Brand

[Steadmund Brand]

Great.

You have found some great stuff, on one crazy bloke. Just hope there isn't a photo of that sidekick of yours a darn ugly fellow if you ask me.

Oh how right you are.....scary thing is....you should see his Aussie Twin...woof now that is scary looking ��

Steadmund Brand

[Ally]

[QUOTE=mklhawley;415056]

Hi all,
more than this, but it's not just Norris' deposition. Yes, it absolutely corroborates Tumblety as a misogynist, especially when you take into account the testimony of Frank Widner, the lawyer Riordan loved, Simpson, Judge Papin, etc. Their testimony was quite damning.

I don't dispute Tumblety was a misogynist. That doesn't make him Jack the Ripper. There is a huge difference between a man who hides his face when a woman comes in the room (my there's a guy with guts) and a guy who actually kills people.

\

Of course, he would remember this, especially when he saw his knives and heard Dr. T say all night walkers should be disemboweled. It was significant enough for him to approach the chief of police! He even said he tried to avoid Tumblety, but Tumblety did indeed hound a young man who he favored.

I don't dispute Tumblety had knives. That doesn't make him Jack the Ripper. I have knives. Several dozen people I know have knives. Tumblety saying he thought all prostitutes should be disemboweled is again, evidence of literally nothing. He was in London during the murders. He was well aware of the crimes. Being a misogynist it was probably fairly natural for him to say that he thought all prostitutes should be disemboweled as it probably seemed fitting to him. That doesn't make him Jack the Ripper. It makes him a butthead. Not Jack the Ripper. Hounding a young man he favored doesn't make him Jack the Ripper. Even the young man doesn't claim he did anything forceful or actually violent against him (other than that ludicrous bit of theater to explain how he saw the penis, which I find absurd. Like what Tumblety had to unzip Norris pants and stroke his naked penis for several minutes before it dawned on Norris what was going on? Give me a break.)

[GUT]

Yes, and actually, I had so much before the St. Louis stuff, I had already planned on writing it. I'm sending one Down Under!

Mike

Great.

You have found some great stuff, on one crazy bloke. Just hope there isn't a photo of that sidekick of yours a darn ugly fellow if you ask me.

[mklhawley]

Yes, and actually, I had so much before the St. Louis stuff, I had already planned on writing it. I'm sending one Down Under!

Mike

[GUT]

Hi all,

Excellent discussion, although Ally, you may be surprised that I disagree with your opinion that Tumblety was absolutely not Jack the Ripper, since I'm not convinced you have seen all the new evidence (even in The Ripper's Haunts). There is more (as Jonathan just found out a bit more). Norris' deposition had more than this, but it's not just Norris' deposition. Yes, it absolutely corroborates Tumblety as a misogynist, especially when you take into account the testimony of Frank Widner, the lawyer Riordan loved, Simpson, Judge Papin, etc. Their testimony was quite damning.

Keep in mind, this man (Norris) was sworn under oath and he had an excellent reputation with the police. Norris was intimately close to this man each Mardis Gras before 1888 and after. Of course, he would remember this, especially when he saw his knives and heard Dr. T say all night walkers should be disemboweled. It was significant enough for him to approach the chief of police! He even said he tried to avoid Tumblety, but Tumblety did indeed hound a young man who he favored.

This material deserves to be ripped apart by everyone (including people who hate my guts) and I promise it will come out. I just can't do it now.

Ripper peer review is awesome.

Sincerely,

Mike

Will this stuff be in the next book, Mike?

[mklhawley]

Hi all,

Excellent discussion, although Ally, you may be surprised that I disagree with your opinion that Tumblety was absolutely not Jack the Ripper, since I'm not convinced you have seen all the new evidence (even in The Ripper's Haunts). There is more (as Jonathan just found out a bit more). Norris' deposition had more than this, but it's not just Norris' deposition. Yes, it absolutely corroborates Tumblety as a misogynist, especially when you take into account the testimony of Frank Widner, the lawyer Riordan loved, Simpson, Judge Papin, etc. Their testimony was quite damning.

Keep in mind, this man (Norris) was sworn under oath and he had an excellent reputation with the police. Norris was intimately close to this man each Mardis Gras before 1888 and after. Of course, he would remember this, especially when he saw his knives and heard Dr. T say all night walkers should be disemboweled. It was significant enough for him to approach the chief of police! He even said he tried to avoid Tumblety, but Tumblety did indeed hound a young man who he favored.

This material deserves to be ripped apart by everyone (including people who hate my guts) and I promise it will come out. I just can't do it now.

Ripper peer review is awesome.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Ally]

Let me put it this way. If you go into a court of law and give sworn evidence in which your dates and times are all confused you will get torn apart by any half decent counsel and probably leave the witness box with your credibility wishing it had never been born.

Oh I agree that if your dates and times are all confused, and dates and times matter and you are cross-examined your credibility will take a hit. But as I don't know that the cross examination took place, and I don't know that the dates were ever specified as being meaningful if it happened. See to us, the precise dates are meaningful and relevant. To someone just trying to get a general idea of Tumblety's character and hearing about "bad acts", when exactly these bad acts took place aren't necessarily relevant. Yes absolutely, he could have been slammed, if there was a halfway decent cross-examination, I'll give you that, but let's be honest., Ninety percent of court cases don't have the preparation that Law and Order leads us to believe they have and most attorneys don't put that kind of work into it. It would be nice to think there was a Matlock moment in every law case, but usually it doesn't happen.

I have a feeling the cross examination was less concerned as to when these alleged actions took place and more concerned with just not allowing the actions themselves into the record. And if he said anywhere in there...well I've known him for twenty years, a lot's happened, most juries will realize you can't have a precise memory over twenty years.

I mean I'll be honest, I really don't even know as to what point Norris was testifying about stuff that happened twenty years ago was to this trial. What did events of twenty years ago matter to his making a will presumably, far more recently?

[GUT]

They could both be right I guess. The comment is working "with" the police rather than working "for" them so if he left the police force in 1884 and started working with the police as a telegraph operator/clerk, or whatever he was, that would make sense.

That was my thought too.

[Ozzy]

Ozzy,

You misread something Jonathan had posted about Bundy and a myth that he'd been raised to think his mother was his sister. That's where I think you got it. Probably just skimmed it and conflated the two cases.

No worries, we've all done it.

That sounds about right Ally thanks.
Like you, I'm a little under the weather myself at the moment. A chesty cough I can't get rid of. Maybe the Co-codamol I'd taken shortly before had something to do with it all.

[David Orsam]

Just repeating what it mentioned in the December 10th, 1907 New Orleans Times Democrat.
However, subsequent to that, the February 28, 1918 Times Picayune stated he began as a patrolman in August ( 8th ) 1880.
Take yer pick.

They could both be right I guess. The comment is working "with" the police rather than working "for" them so if he left the police force in 1884 and started working with the police as a telegraph operator/clerk, or whatever he was, that would make sense.

[GUT]

That's actually a really interesting point. I wonder if there's a way to find out?

It actually should be easy to find out.

First up there should be an order on the file indicating that it is sealed.

[jmenges]

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.

To me Norris is describing his first meeting with Tumblety in "1880 or 1881" he goes on to mention, in order, events with Tumblety that happened in 1888; 1889; 1895 and 1902.

JM

[David Orsam]

See I disagree about dates and times being confused being indicators of credibility.

Let me put it this way. If you go into a court of law and give sworn evidence in which your dates and times are all confused you will get torn apart by any half decent counsel and probably leave the witness box with your credibility wishing it had never been born.

Just to give one example. Counsel stands up and says: so Mr Norris, all these events occurred in 1880 or 1881 did they? He says "yes". You say but the Jack the Ripper murders were in 1888. He goes "erm, crikey, I might have got mixed up". It can go quickly downhill from there until Norris is suddenly not even sure of his own name.

It's a big mistake if you think the kind of informal conversations you have in normal daily life can be replicated in a court room. It's the kind of mistake that is made every single day and every single day some poor unsuspecting witness, faced with a highly paid and very experienced cross-examiner, learns the error of his or her ways.

While we can adopt a more tolerant approach on the forum, the credibility of any story in which the facts are shown to be wrong will be affected I'm afraid. That's just life.