Tumblety: The Hidden Truth

[David Orsam]

He doesn't specify. You have what I have and this section is the only time he speaks of the Whitechapel murders. If I were to guess it would be around the same period as when he spoke to Hennessy as he then describes Tumblety basically buying back his trust, which must have worked as they continued their relationship nearly up until Tumblety's death.

Yes, the chronology is very confusing. He says:

"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, and he sent me notes and letters, and even came to the office after me. He gave me a good time..."

I can only assume that at the point in the story between the words "after me" and "He gave me a good time" Norris switches without missing a beat from post-November 1888 right back to 1880/81 otherwise I can't make sense of it.

[jmenges]

See I read that as a continuation. He asked Tumblety about the murders, tried to shun him but was unsuccessful. It's unfortunate Norris was so scrambled that other interpretations as to the time frames are possible. Whether that's evidence of him being untruthful is also a matter of opinion. Nothing is ever easy in Ripperology.

JM

[David Orsam]

See I read that as a continuation.

But at the end he is asked directly "What time did all this take place?" and he says "This happened in 1881 or 1880." So at some point after talking to Dr T about the Whitechapel Murders his story must revert back to events in 1880/81
mustn't it?

Either that or he thinks that the Whitechapel Murders occurred in 1880 and his chronology is hopelessly wrong from the start.

[Ally]

I think part of what we must remember is much of this testimony is taking place some years after the events. I have difficulty keeping track of what I did last year vs the year before. I am constantly confusing timelines in the span of two years. Multiple years is really too much to hope for. I think part of it is also contaminated not so much by the fact that he's lying, but also I think he's trying to make himself appear better in his testimony a lot, so he's hemming and hawwing and backtracking and rethinking and retracing his comments. There's way too much like "I'm not not like THAT" "I tried to distance myself" etc. So we have a very confusing tale confused by time and someone who, while they may not be lying exactly is confusing the truth by trying to throw rose water on their own selves to cover up the smell by association.

But I also think it might help once we have the book published and the availability to read all the testimony for ourselves. I would hope it will be published for reading. It's hard to follow verbally something as confusing and deliberately obfuscated as this.

[jmenges]

David,
I see it as meaning the first encounter in the room he begins his statement with being 1880-1881 and then he goes off on an incredible tangent. But read it as you wish, I'm only a messenger.

JM

[David Orsam]

I think part of what we must remember is much of this testimony is taking place some years after the events.

Yes of course but we are talking about two supposed separate incidents separated by about nine years here.

So one question which arises is whether, in fact, everything that Norris says in the story actually happened in, say, 1889 and he simply got the year wrong.

[David Orsam]

David,
I see it as meaning the first encounter in the room he begins his statement with being 1880-1881 and then he goes off on an incredible tangent. But read it as you wish, I'm only a messenger.

I don't disagree with the tangent but the events of his story must surely come back to 1880-81 at some point otherwise his last answer can't possibly make any sense.

Unless of course, as I say above, everything actually happened much later than 1880-81 and he got his years completely muddled when telling the story about 16 (?) years later.

[Ally]

Honestly, yes that's my supposition. Or he's just a really bad story teller who confuses dates times and happening. I mean I KNOW people like this. They'll start telling you about things and they are off on one thing and then another as something else comes to mind and they can't keep a linear train of thought if their lives depended on it. And I am sure that part of the reason that there is so much obfuscation and babble and...blur... to his testimony is when you strip away all the garnish, HE doesn't come off too good in it. He's confessing to prostitution and association with unsavory sorts. And he's "respectable" now.

Here's things I don't really doubt:

1. Tumblety had a micro-penis.
2. Tumblety at some point probably said something about thinking prostitutes should be disemboweled.
3. Norris was a prostitute or as near as (though he wants to whitewash himself) and had an up close view of Tumblety's penis.

Norris has a few pieces of truth that all together add up to ...zip.

I mean, Tumblety still wasn't Jack the Ripper. So it's irrelevant. Vaguely interesting from a historical perspective, sure. But in the larger scheme of things, not really earth-shattering to the case. Interesting that this research has been uncovered and well done to the gentleman who did it (and I am sorry I can't recall his name right now as I do want to give credit where it is due... I blame the head lump) and thanks to Mike for bringing to us, but you know... Tumblety still wasn't the Ripper.

[jmenges]

I have 9 more pages of Norris' deposition that follows this opening statement and if it gets any clearer I'll make a post if I think it helps out the chronology of events. I've not had time to read it yet (I'm at work today so I've scrolled through it on my phone) but know that my agreement with Mike Hawley is that I only directly post verbatim from the deposition what he's already read aloud on the podcast. Otherwise I'll paraphrase or give the gist of it if I think it might help.

JM

[Ally]

I think Ally should get to read the deposition. Because Ally is awesome.

I'm pretty sure everyone would agree with that.

[David Orsam]

Honestly, yes that's my supposition. Or he's just a really bad story teller who confuses dates times and happening. I mean I KNOW people like this. They'll start telling you about things and they are off on one thing and then another as something else comes to mind and they can't keep a linear train of thought if their lives depended on it.

Absolutely, no doubt about it, and equally I would not be at all surprised if someone tells me a story tomorrow about something that they thought happened in 1991 which actually happened in 1999.

Seems a little strange to me that after the traumatic events of 1881 Norris is still hanging around Tumblety in 1889 but please don't think I'm trying to undermine his story, or have any reason to do so, because I'm not, I'm just curious.

[Ally]

See that's the part I doubt happened. I think he was trying to make it seem like he only saw Tumblety's penis under forced circumstances. No way would he WILLINGLY have seen a naked man's penis..no way. He's not like THAT, he'd have to kill him first! sure, he'd take clothes and gifts from him, but ..he's not like THAT!

See what I mean? I think he had to come up with a lie about how he came to see it. With the coroner/undertaker there's a legitimate reason for them to have seen it. Same with the guy who sees him drunk and his pants fell off when he carried him up the stairs.

But what legitimate reason is there for Norris to have caught a glimpse at his bits? None. So ..well he forced me is what it was...

I don't really buy that part. So do I think there was total truth in everything he said? Nope. Like I said, I think he was whitewashing it to make himself look better. AT the time he was testifying, he was no longer a lowly rent boy, he was respectable, I think he was even married at the time and had been for some years. So can't go giving the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

[David Orsam]

Here's things I don't really doubt:

1. Tumblety had a micro-penis.
2. Tumblety at some point probably said something about thinking prostitutes should be disemboweled.
3. Norris was a prostitute or as near as (though he wants to whitewash himself) and had an up close view of Tumblety's penis.

I don't have any reason to doubt his evidence at all. It's a shame in a way that that he's telling the story about the disembowelling of prostitutes in the very same story in which he is discussing the possibility of Tumblety being Jack the Ripper because he might have muddled his recollection in hindsight and it would have been better, I think, had that not been the case. But I suppose that story of Dr T possibly being JTR was so well known that it would have been impossible for him not to have known about it.

But it's a great and amazing story that we get from these depositions and certainly much food for thought about what effect it all had on the life and personality of Dr T.

[David Orsam]

I have 9 more pages of Norris' deposition that follows this opening statement and if it gets any clearer I'll make a post if I think it helps out the chronology of events. I've not had time to read it yet (I'm at work today so I've scrolled through it on my phone) but know that my agreement with Mike Hawley is that I only directly post verbatim from the deposition what he's already read aloud on the podcast. Otherwise I'll paraphrase or give the gist of it if I think it might help.

That would be great. And thanks for transcribing the passage that you did, it was a fascinating read.

[Howard Brown]

Richard Norris was considered one of best clerks and operators at the Bertillon Dept. and by 1907, had worked with the local police for 23 years.