Tumblety: The Hidden Truth

[Robert]

Unfortunately we can't now hear the way Norris said it. "If he had his way they would all be disembowelled" - taken in isolation, it could be pre-Ripper or post-Ripper. But "If he had his way they would all be disembowelled" - definitely post-Ripper.

[David Orsam]

The meaning yes....I read it as he remembered at the time...but said know, as in "I knew at the time.. that in the past he has said"

So, in other words, he remembered, at the time, what Tumblety had said to him in the past?

"remembered" is the correct word isn't it? "knew" or "know" just isn't right.

[Steadmund Brand]

I do think that he (or the person trying to write it out as it was being spoken) was linguistically incompetent....you see it with other testimony...even in other parts of Norris's ....

Robert...another great point...why I again say we can't know because we can't ask him to clarify

Steadmund Brand

[Ally]

So, in other words, he remembered, at the time, what Tumblety had said to him in the past?

"remembered" is the correct word isn't it? "knew" or "know" just isn't right.

Ding ding! Thank you! That was a much less awkward and much more succinct way of saying what my fried brain was taking way too long and way too many words to try and come up with. It's not linguistically right if you try and make it refer to what happened in a previous event.

[Abby Normal]

I'm still trying to get over micro penis

[Ally]

I'm still trying to get over micro penis

I'm sorry. I hear they're doing great things with plastic surgery nowadays. Don't lose hope.

[Robert]

"I'm still trying to get over micro penis"

Maybe the court records contain a thumbnail sketch of one.

[c.d.]

"I'm still trying to get over micro penis"

Maybe the court records contain a thumbnail sketch of one.

Maybe but I'm not sure the evidence will stand up in court.

c.d.

[c.d.]

I'm sorry. I hear they're doing great things with plastic surgery nowadays. Don't lose hope.

Classic.

c.d.

[David Orsam]

So, if I understand it all correctly, here are the two different ways that the first whole two sentences are being read (with me again taking liberties with the text):

Ally's way (with a confused Norris getting the year wrong):

"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; and I did know about the White Chapel business at the time I had the conversation with him about the disemboweling."

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 and, at the time I read about it, I did remember the conversation I had had with him in 1881 about the disemboweling."

[Abby Normal]

I'm sorry. I hear they're doing great things with plastic surgery nowadays. Don't lose hope.

I won't. Thanks ally

[GUT]

So, if I understand it all correctly, here are the two different ways that the first whole two sentences are being read (with me again taking liberties with the text):

Ally's way (with a confused Norris getting the year wrong):

"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; and I did know about the White Chapel business at the time I had the conversation with him about the disemboweling."

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 and, at the time I read about it, I did remember the conversation I had had with him in 1881 about the disemboweling."

That's seems to be right.

[Ally]

Yep. That's it, David. With of course the addendum that my interpretation means the sentences make grammatical sense, as they were said.

Their interpretation is simply that, an interpretation they are trying to shoehorn in because the grammatical structure of the sentence doesn't support it, and he doesn't actually SAY any of that.

[Steadmund Brand]

Remember...it's not "their" it's "mine" hahaha Mike and I disagree on the wording...the infamous "not" and all....and as I said....it IS grammatically wrong....as is so much in these statements......but Ally...give credit where credit is due....if you disagree it's with me (Brian) not us (Mike and Brian) for he would be wrong in a whole other way ��.......
And as I said many times.....I am NOT claiming I am right....just that....that is how I read it....without hearing it live, and asking what he meant or any other follow up questions...we cant know for sure......it is VERY possible you are correct, mo doubt
also no shoehorning here...as I also do not believe that Tumblety was the Ripper.....I think Norris tried to make him look bad (and make himself seem "innocent....when he, Norris, was clearly a scumbag)...I do believe Tumblety is a (contemporary) suspect that should be looked at as such.....

But in all fairness, you have to differentiate between Mike and Brian...
I am the tall good looking one.....just ask GUT...

Plus..I can't defend what or how Mike sees it....only he can....and will I'm sure he will....but this one....shoot the arrows at me alone �� I can take it.

The important thing is, he testified to the knives, the disemboweling and other such offences'....whether he was mixing up years as you think, or using terrible English as I think...what matters is he said it.....now....the real question is....is he telling the "truth" or is he remembering things years later and putting them together in his head the way he "wants" it to be.....or just so damn nervous talking about "things" that he gets all muddled up...

Again, sadly we will never know for sure.

Steadmund (Brian)

[Ally]

Brian,

Your interpretation still requires shoehorning in a time jump and the belief that he just suddenly couldn't speak a grammatically correct sentence.


My way, his sentence is grammatically correct as it is. He just forgot what year it happened.

Your way requires him to have forgotten to distinguish a time jump, "Now later on, when I was reading about the Whitechapel murders...."


and him to have suddenly lost his grammatical ability to connect pronouns "it" with their logical antecedents.

The way you interpret the sentence doesn't make logical sense for the structure of the sentence.

My way, the sentence is actually perfect as written. He just confused the year.

Your way requires a lot more "well, he screwed up saying this, and this, and this and this, but this is just as valid an interpretation as yours". Your way requires an explanation for four mistakes you BELIEVE he made. And you want to claim it's as valid as mine.

I disagree. I am going with Occam's here. And the simplest explanation is, he said exactly what he meant and it makes perfect sense.

He just misremembered the year.


And if you want to claim that in this one instance he completely went to **** linguistically, you have to find another example in there where his sentence structure went kaput lingusitically and he confused simple words like "remembered" and "know". As a person would SPEAK, not as a person would write. As there is a distinct linguistic difference.