Tumblety: The Hidden Truth

[David Orsam]

He gives his occupation, in 1905, as a "telegraph operator and clerk at the Police Station" which probably pre-dates his job as a bertillon operator (which is interesting, thanks How).

Did he switch from patrolman to telegraph operator/clerk in about 1884? That might explain the "23 years by 1907" comment.

[jmenges]

He gives his occupation, in 1905, as a "telegraph operator and clerk at the Police Station" which probably pre-dates his job as a bertillon operator (which is interesting, thanks How). His brother John worked the Axeman case of 1918-19.

JM

[David Orsam]

There are still some questions about the story he gives which are a little shady.

If he was a patrolman at the time of this hotel room liason, for instance.

Mardi Gras 1880 would presumably have been before he joined the police, if he joined in August 1880, and he says he was employed by the American District Telegraph Office at the time in his deposition but clearly any contact with Dr T after the Whitechapel murders must have been while he was with the police, if he remained with them up to 1907.

[Ally]

Yes, the fact of his employment with the police force is known. And was discussed. The fact that someone in the late 19th century/early 20th century would obfuscate about their sexuality is not really surprising. Especially considering his employment.

[David Orsam]

He also joined the police department (NOPD ) on August 8th, 1880 as a patrolman.

If he had been working with the local police for 23 years in 1907 then he started working with them in about 1884 by my maths.

[jmenges]

From what I understand Richard Norris has been fully investigated over at least the past 4 months by not only Mike but a couple of other expert Tumblety researchers whose names you might be able to guess. As far as I know, which is only what I've been told, nothing (outside of his 20 plus year relationship with Tumblety) stands out as remarkable. Mike also noted on the podcast his long-standing employment with the police department as a telegraph operator, which he states suggests a high level of trust the department had in him.

Howard,
At the time of the deposition he gave his address as 1821 South Rampart Street, New Orleans (Google shows what could be the original house still standing). He gave his age as 43.

JM

[Howard Brown]

He also joined the police department (NOPD ) on August 8th, 1880 as a patrolman.



Nina Brown found newspaper articles and census data on him and his family.

There are still some questions about the story he gives which are a little shady.

If he was a patrolman at the time of this hotel room liason, for instance.

[Ally]

Good for him. I guess that alludes to his overall truthfullness and character in his later years. Adds even more weight to his sworn testimony.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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]

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

I'm pretty sure everyone would agree with that.

[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